1951-06-11

Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works) moved:: That the name of Mr. Weaver be substituted for that of Mr. Conacher on the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I desire to lay on the table the annual report of the Polymer Corporation for the twelve months period ended March 31, 1951.
While I am on my feet I might answer a question that was asked last Friday as to changes in the directorate and management of the Polymer Corporation. Mr. E. J. Brunning, chairman and president of the corporation, due to pressure of other business finds himself unable to devote as much time as he has heretofore to the affairs of the corporation. He therefore resigns as president, but remains chairman of the board.
The board of directors accepted with regret the resignation of Mr. J. R. Nicholson, formerly executive vice-president and managing director, who leaves the corporation to accept a senior post in a large Canadian concern.
Mr. J. D. Barrington, who has been vicepresident and general manager of Dominion Magnesium, Limited, and president of Light Alloys Limited, has accepted the position of full-time president and managing director of Polymer Corporation.
Mr. E. R. Rowzee, who has held the position of manager of Polymer Corporation, becomes vice-president and manager.



QUESTIONS


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Maliais:: 1.	What is the amount of tolls or rental paid each year by the Canadian National Railways for the use of the Quebec railway lines between Quebec and St. Joachim?
2.	What is the freight rate schedule between St. Joachim and La Malbaie?
3.	What is the freight rate schedule between St. Joachim and Quebec?
4.	Has the Canadian National Railways any record of the freight carried during the last ten years on the section of the Clermont and St. Joachim line? If so, how much freight was carried during this period?
5.	Has the Canadian National Railways any record of the freight carried on the section of the St. Joachim and Quebec line? If so, how much freight was carried during the last five years?


Mr. Benidickson:: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	The Canadian National Railways does not pay rental or tolls for the use of the Quebec Railway lines between Quebec and St. Joachim. Instead, and as is common to all interline traffic movements, revenues are divided on the basis of established divisions. Statistics are not available to indicate Quebec Railway's share of revenues derived from these interline movements, and to obtain them would involve a large amount of clerical work and extra expense.
2.	Canadian National Railways' Murray Bay subdivision comprises the line between La Malbaie and St. Joachim, and the published rates reflect the regular basis of rates, which vary depending on the commodity or commodities moving. The distance from La Malbaie to St. Joachim is 63 miles, and the class rates are as shown below:
1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9 1073	66	54	47	36	35	29	29	- 243. The distance over the Quebec Railway light and power line from Quebec to St. Joachim is 25-1 miles, and the class rates published by that line are reproduced hereunder: 1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8 9	1031	28	24	19	16	14	12	14 -	11
in addition, the Quebec Railway Light & Power Company, as in the case of local movements over our Murray Bay subdivision, previously mentioned, also publishes commodity rates, and these vary depending on the commodity or commodities shipped.
4 and 5. It is not the practice of the Canadian National Railways to disclose tonnage and earnings figures which might react to its disadvantage in the field of competitive effort.

Questions



BONAVENTURE, QUE., COMMERCIAL WHARF

Mr. Courlemanche:: 1.	Was any work performed on the commercial wharf of Bonaventure, Bonaventure county, Quebec, between May and September, 1950?
2.	If so, was the work done by contract or by day labour?
3.	If by contract, what was the amount thereof, and to whom was the contract awarded?
4.	If by day labour, who was the supervisor or foreman of such work?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	Yes.
2.	By day labour.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	Aubin Bernard, foreman.



REPAIRS TO MARSHALL BUILDING, ST. JOHN'S, NFLD.

Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: 1.	What has been the cost of the repairs to the Marshall building in St. John's, Newfoundland?
2.	Are these repairs being made under contract as a result of tenders, and what was the amount of the contract?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	$133,507.27.
2.	(a) Yes; (b) $117,410.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Hodgson:: 1.	What are the total expenditures to date on the residence of the Prime Minister of Canada for (a) landscaping or alterations to grounds; (b) furnishing residence, including cutlery, etc.; (c) total payment to architects; (d) amount of commissions or allowances paid, and to whom; (e) total expenditures on this property?
2.	What is the estimated cost to complete work authorized for this property?



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE


Mr. Wrighi:: 1.	What are the names and addresses of all persons employed under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act in Saskatchewan, during the year 1950?
2.	What sum of money was paid to each person as (a) salary or wages; (b) sustenance; (c) mileage; (d) other allowances, and what was the nature of the work performed by each?
3.	How many persons were employed (a) part time; (b) full time, in 1950?
4.	What was the total sum paid to all (a) part time employees; (b) full time employees?
5.	At what rate are (a) salaries or wages; (b) sustenance; (c) mileage; (d) other allowances, paid to common labour, foremen, all other employees, under this act?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Diefenbaker:: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the government of the provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba, and any depart-

ment of the federal government, relative to the South Saskatchewan river irrigation and* power project, and a copy of all engineering or other reports concerning the feasibility of the project or with reference to surveys made since January 1, 1951.



BONAVENTURE, QUE., COMMERCIAL WHARF

Mr. Couriemanche:: For a copy of all payrolls and a statement of materials purchased in connection with the repairs to the commercial wharf of Bonaventure, Bonaventure county, Quebec, from October 1 to December 31, 1950.


Henri Courtemanche: For a copy of the payrolls and a statement of materials purchased in connection with the repair work done to the commercial wharf at Bonaventure, county of Bonaventure, Quebec, from May to September, 1950.



SALOMON HENRY'S WHARF, ST. SIMEON, QUE.

Henri Courtemanche: For a copy of payrolls and a statement of materials purchased in connection with the repair work done to Salomon Henry's wharf at St. Simeon, county of Bonaventure, Quebec, from September 1, 1949, to February, 1950.



CROSS POINT, QUE., WHARF

Henri Courtemanche: For a copy of all payrolls and* a statement of materials purchased in connection with the repairs to the wharf at Cross Point, Bonaventure county, Quebec, from January 1 to December 31, 1950.



XAVIER POIRIER'S WHARF, ST. SIMEON, QUE.

Henri Courtemanche: For a copy of the payrolls and* a statement of materials purchased in connection with the repair work done to Xavier Poirier's wharf at St. Simeon, county of Bonaventure, Quebec, from September 1, 1949, to February, 1950.



PROTECTION WORK IN FRONT OF CHARLES A. FOREST'S PROPERTY, BONAVENTURE, QUE.

Henri Courtemanche: For a copy of all payrolls and a statement of materials purchased in connection with the repair or construction of protection work in front of Charles A. Forest's property at Bonaventure, county of Bonaventure, Quebec, from October 1, to December 31, 1950.



RUISSEAU LEBLANC, QUE., WHARF

Henri Courtemanche: For a copy of all payrolls and* a statement of materials purchased in connection with the repairs to the wharf at Ruisseau LeBlanc, county of Bonaventure, Quebec, from April to December, 1950.



FAUVEL, QUE., WHARF

Henri Courtemanche: For a copy of all payrolls and* a statement of materials purchased in connection with the repairs to the wharf at Fauvel, county of Bonaventure, Quebec, from May to December, 1950.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure conferring authority upon the governor in council to authorize the Canadian National Railway Company to construct a line of railway from Sherridon to Lynn Lake, in the province of Manitoba, a distance of approximately 155 miles at an estimated expenditure of $14,725,000 and an average expenditure of $95,000' per mile. The measure will make provision for the issue by the company of securities, which may be guaranteed by the government in respect of the cost of construction. To enable the company to proceed with construction forthwith temporary loans may be made the company out of the consolidated revenue fund, upon terms and conditions prescribed by the governor in council and1 secured by company securities.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Will the
Minister of Finance state whether the government is giving consideration to a revision or amendment of the Civil Service Superannuation Act? If so, is it intended to present the legislation at this session or in the near future?


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: No consideration is being given at the present time to a revision of the act.



COST OF LIVING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the light of press
reports, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is the dominion bureau of statistics working on a new basis for the cost of living index? If so, will labour and other interested bodies have an opportunity to make representations before any new basis is finally adopted?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The bureau of statistics is
studying a revised basis for the cost of living
Inquiries of the Ministry index, and I shall be glad to suggest to them that labour be permitted to discuss the matter with them before it is adopted.


Mr. Fair:: Will the minister also include
representatives of agriculture?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall be glad to suggest that agriculture be consulted as well.



IRON ORE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the Minister of Trade and
Commerce state whether Steep Rock Iron Mines have now delivered the first five million tons of ore referred to in the agreement of 1942? If so, may we assume that the freight subsidy in connection therewith has ceased?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the
delivery of the five million tons was completed last autumn, and there is no government subsidy in connection with the operation of the Steep Rock mine at the moment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of the minister's
statement, will he indicate whether representations have been made to the government that the subsidy be continued or reinstated?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No such representations have
been made.



POST OFFICE ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, May 30, consideration in committee of Bill No. 322, respecting the Canada Post Office-* Mr. Rinfret-Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Mr. Rinfret:: The discussion on section 1 has been along two lines. One branch of the discussion has been concerned with the operating details of the department, while the other branch has been concerned with the increased rates on newspapers. In connection with this latter branch, I should like to say that when we reach section 11 I propose to ask one of my colleagues to move an amendment to that section. This might simplify the discussion of section 1, and we can discuss the amendment on section 11.


Mr. Drew:: Will the effect of the amendment be a reduction in the postal rates now indicated in that section?

Post Office Act


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: That will be the effect of it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Definition.
Mr. McLure:: Paragraph (c) of subsection 1 reads:
"Deposit at a post office" means to leave in a post office or with a person authorized by the Postmaster General to receive mailable matter.
Then paragraph (d) says that "mail" means mailable matter from the time of its deposit at a post office to the time of its delivery. How soon after it is received is it postmarked?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: The postmark is put on as soon as it reaches the post office.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Paragraph (g) deals with
"mail conveyance". This paragraph does not include motor trucks, so I presume that tenders will not include the provision that the tenderer must give assurance that he has a half-top truck to carry the mail?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: This is only a definition, and it brings the definition in fine with existing methods of transportation now used by the post office.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: The old tenders for contracts included a paragraph stating that no tender would be considered unless the person tendering had a half-ton truck in which to carry the mail. Now, that is no longer included?
Paragraph (k) says:
"Postage stamp" means any stamp or impression authorized by the Postmaster General for the purpose of paying postage.
I presume that would include postage meters. How are these machines operated? Are they owned by the post office, or by the firm putting them in, and what do they cost?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: On the first question, the
stipulations that are put in the demand for tender depend, of course, on the condition of the road. I do not believe there is any condition in any of our contracts that call for a truck of so many tons. A snowmobile might be called for if the circumstances of the road required it during the wintertime. I do not believe we put any restriction or qualification on the truck itself.
As to the second question, paragraph (k) covers postage stamps and postage impressions of all kinds, including those made by postage meters, postage registers and like mechanical devices. The meters are rented by the firm. The firm goes to the post office, deposits a certain amount of money, and the meter is wound up to the amount that has been deposited. When the meter is used it decreases down to zero; then the firm goes back to
[Mr. Drew.J
the post office and deposits a further sum of money, and the meter is again wound up to the amount of money deposited.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: The firm does not get any commission on these machines?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: No.


Mr. Hatfield:: Who rents the machines, the Post Office Department or some outside firm?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Does the hon. member ask
who rents them to the firms?


Heber Harold Hatfield: Yes.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: An outside concern.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
On section 4-Deputy postmaster general.
Mr. Noseworihy:: Mr. Chairman, can the Postmaster General tell me the percentage of postal employees now employed as temporaries as compared with the number of permanents?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: The figure is twenty per cent.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-Powers, etc., of Postmaster General.
George Alexander Drew: It would appear that this is the section in relation to which I should like to obtain some information from the minister. There has been some considerable amount of discussion in the house since the earlier part of the session-Mr. Chairman, I will wait for a minute or two until it is possible for me to hear my own voice.


The Chairman:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: As I was saying, there has been a considerable amount of discussion since the earlier part of the session with regard to the changed arrangements which have been made for the delivery of mail. I recognize that in a great many places the hardship which was experienced by the postmen in the earlier stages has been diminished to some extent by the gradual working out of the new system. On the other hand, I find that in some of the larger cities, and in fact in many communities across the country, there is still a good deal of objection to the change which has been made in regard to mail delivery and the carrying of the mail. It does not relate so much to the length of hours that the postmen are called upon to work, although that matter in itself is a source of objection in many cases, but rather to the fact that, particularly in the larger communities, a postman is called upon to carry a load of mail which was never contemplated in the early days when postal services were established.

Every one of us recognizes that, day by day, there is a tendency for periodical publications to increase both in size and in weight. Moreover, the people are having a larger number of periodical publications delivered to their homes by mail. I am sure that every one of the members has seen postmen carrying an enonmous load of heavy material which is largely the result of this changed arrangement. I know the answer can be given that the instructions are so worked out that this should not be the case. The fact remains, however, that whatever the instructions are, and whatever the circumstances are, I have personally had representations made to me by many postmen in different parts of this country in regard to the weight of the loads they are called upon to carry. That is particularly noticeable in the more severe weather, and of course in those areas in which the weather is more extreme.
I certainly would be the last one in the house to argue against any step that will effect economy in keeping with efficiency. I am convinced, and have said so many times, that there are a great many places where large savings can be effected in the government service. Nevertheless, in certain types of government service, efficiency must not be jeopardized by any attempt at false economy. The postmen and the post office employees generally are not only part of our whole social structure but are also a vital part of our economic structure. In addition, they are almost a part of the households of the people whom they serve. I doubt if there are any working members of the community who are brought closer, day by day, to the people whom they serve. For that very reason it is essential that this great and important service-and one which the Canadian post office has every reason to point to with pride -should not be jeopardized, nor should the excellent morale that has existed in that department over the years be impaired, by any regulations which would leave an impression in the minds of the postal employees that the value and the importance of their service were not being adequately recognized.
I do not think that the Postmaster General will question the fact that many postmen have retired from the service during these past few months. Some have been compelled to do so because of their health. No matter to what extent the earlier complaints may have been diminished in some communities, I earnestly suggest that the effect of the present arrangement on the morale and on the efficiency of the service in many other communities be carefully examined.
Having said that, from the point of view of the postmen themselves who perform an immensely valuable service for every one of
Post Office Act
us, day in and day out, in weather of all kinds, I wish to refer to the other aspect of this problem, and it is one which has not been discussed at any great length during the present session. Efficient and frequent delivery of the mail is one of the essential requirements of our modern society, and is a vitally important function within our business and economic structure. Anything which would make it less effective for the purpose of carrying on our ordinary business transactions would1 indeed be a false economy.
While I do not wish to draw comparisons unfavourably as between Canada and any other country, those who have had occasion to use the mail in London, and,'in fact, generally throughout the British isles, realize that to a great extent the mail is used over there in the place of the telegraph because frequent and prompt deliveries have made the use of the mail an efficient and effective means of immediate communication between business houses as well as between individuals, Reducing the service to one delivery a day is not only a question of economy and a question of its effect on the postman, important though that may be. It also has a marked effect on the value of that service to many business houses as well as to many functions of government at the national, the provincial or the municipal level. Over the years mail delivery here has become less frequent rather than more frequent. Yet in other countries, with the increased efficiency of the general social and economic structure, mail delivery has generally increased, both in number and in speed of deliveries.
I therefore think that this whole procedure should be re-examined and that the Postmaster General should reconsider the changes which have been made, not only from the point of view of the convenience of the postmen and of the postal organization generally, but also from the point of view of the efficiency of business throughout the whole of this country. This is particularly desirable at a time when business is to be stepped up through the addition of defence production to our ordinary civilian requirements. New burdens will be placed upon our postal service-new burdens which will have their impact upon the postmen and the postal employees generally-and also new demand's for efficient service for the more effective carrying out of the business which is done in that way. For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge that the Postmaster General give this subject further consideration, and I can only hope that in this case the consideration may produce the same

Post Office Act
satisfactory results which ensued from our earlier arguments in regard to the cost of postal delivery of newspapers.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I would not like the leader of the opposition to feel too certain that it was his recommendation that brought about this reduction. I have had some other people speak to me, too.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, the promptness with which the Postmaster General referred to something which I had not even indicated suggests that perhaps my arguments had very considerable force with him.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: To come back to the reduction in delivery from two to one a day, there were two purposes to be accomplished by this measure. One was that of economy, and that is the one which for the most part the leader of the opposition has stressed. The other was the question of manpower. In reducing the deliveries from two to one a day we realized an economy of about 1,000 persons in the manpower field. At the outset, we felt that by making this change we could make a reduction of one out of every three men. That is to say, where three men previously served three walks and gave two deliveries a day, two men could serve the same territory by giving only one delivery a day.
We might as well face the cold facts. The service under the one-deiivery system is not as good as that which was formerly given under the two-delivery system. Some of the residential patrons, who formerly received their mail in the morning, will now receive it in the afternoon. Somebody has to be at the beginning of the route, and somebody at the end. There would be a difference of several hours in the times at which various patrons on the same route receive their mail.
The complaints, however, were not from the residential patrons; generally speaking, they accepted the reduction in good spirit. It was mainly commercial or industrial concerns, who for one reason or another were located on a residential walk, who were chiefly affected. As I said before, we hoped to have made the change by making a reduction of one man out of every three. This was found to be impracticable. It was overburdening many of our letter carriers, and causing overtime. The procedure was modified in many areas and a reduction of one in four was instituted. I might say, however, that some offices have been able to fit in the one-delivery service with a reduction of one letter carrier out of every three.
A change of this kind cannot be put into effect overnight. There are so many ramifications, involving all kinds of changes in postal arrangements. Complaints were received, but

in every case the complaint was investigated, and, where improvements could reasonably be effected, this was done immediately. The service did not involve greater travel by letter carriers, but it did involve additional loads. This was mitigated wherever possible by an adjustment of the routes, and also by having part of the load delivered to relay bundle boxes, stores and other places; we are supplying these relay bundle boxes as soon as they can be provided. In the meantime we are using stores and other places to store these bundles for the letter carriers. There was actually a certain amount of dislocation at the outset, but I do not believe this was any reason for not going ahead with the scheme.
I have received recently a report from the main letter carrier offices of Canada, and, with the exception of one or two trouble spots, the change is working out satisfactorily.
In cases where it is found by independent check that the letter carriers are working consistently more than the forty-eight hours a week, as corrected on the eleventh week to bring it to forty-four hours a week, steps will be taken to pay the letter carriers overtime for that additional period until such time as the walks can be readjusted and brought within the uniform five and a half day week.
One of the chief sore spots is Toronto. I will be perfectly frank and admit that the situation in Toronto is not as good as we could wish, but it is not entirely due to the establishment of the one delivery a day system. As a matter of fact, there was an inordinate increase in the amount of business in Toronto. The revenue for the month of April increased by $400,000 over the same month last year, or approximately twenty-eight per cent.


Mr. Adamson:: I do not want to interrupt, but what was the total revenue?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Roughly $1,500,000. In addition many employees are leaving the post office to obtain employment in commercial and industrial concerns at a higher rate of pay than the post office is able to give, tied down as we are to specific rates and conditions. Improvements, however, will depend to no small extent on the department being able to obtain suitable replacements for employees who have either retired from the service on account of age, or have resigned, at the salaries and on the conditions of employment which we have to offer.
At this point I might mention that I have received a large number of letters from postal

patrons all across Canada, expressing appreciation of the adjustments made.
I wish to express a word of commendation to those employees, particularly letter carriers and city sorters, who have had to bear the brunt of this change. In most cases they have helped us loyally to put the change into effect, and I can assure the committee that it is the intention of the Post Office Department not to place any undue strain upon these employees. We shall in all cases make the adjustments as quickly as possible, but we do ask for reasonable co-operation and forbearance while the contingent adjustments are being made. I can give an assurance that we will do all we can to remedy any justifiable grievance.
To put the picture in another way, the post office cannot refuse to accept all business that is offered. When a street car gets overcrowded, the public have to wait for the next one. When the Bell Telephone have used up all the space on the circuit, patrons wishing a telephone have to wait, sometimes for months, before they can be accommodated. Stores which have sold out a particular line of goods simply say "sold out". Laundries and other organizations selling service put out signs indicating that they are unable to accommodate any more customers. The same holds true for railroads and aeroplanes. The post office, however, is expected to take on all comers, twenty-four hours a day, 365 days a year, no matter what the fluctuations in volume may be.
We have no magic formula by which we can foretell the problems of any particular period or provide necessary manpower at a time of shortage. At the present time, men are going out to the armed forces and to essential industries, and this has to be encouraged, not discouraged. All we can do is to save manpower wherever we can, and to cut out any frills. The reduction in postal deliveries was inevitable, and, unless the manpower situation eases, more restrictions may conceivably have to be considered. Everyone who has studied the basic facts will agree with the conclusions we have reached, but unfortunately most people want us to make the necessary economies, but at the expense of someone else.
Let me again make it clear, therefore, that the Post Office Department does not feel it necessary to apologize for its action in restricting service. It was brought about by conditions beyond our control. In regard to the change itself, individual mistakes and errors in carrying out the general policy will occur, and these are regretted. They are
Post Office Act
perhaps pardonable in a large and complex organization such as the postal service, extending as it does from coast to coast.
We can offer no rosy promises for immediate improvement. That will depend on conditions, but hon. members may rest assured that we shall spare no effort to give the most practical and efficient service which the resources at our disposal will permit.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, the illustration offered by the Postmaster General is, I suggest, rather misleading. He says that a condition under which there is an excessive use of telephones, or street car services, or even excessive purchases in stores, can be compared with this situation. If there is a crowding of telephone lines through excessive use of those lines, or if there is a crowding of street cars to such an extent that certain people cannot get on them, or if there is sell-out of goods in a store, necessitating a would-be purchaser waiting for another occasion, the result flows from the actions of the persons seeking to obtain that service. What happened in this instance is the result of action taken by the Post Office Department itself, not by those using the service. The cure, I suggest, is exclusively within the hands of the department. In the other instances the pressure comes about because of the number of people seeking to use the service.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Speaking in reply to some of the observations of the Postmaster General respecting the situation in Toronto, I would say first that I was pleased to find that he is prepared to face the facts so far as that city is concerned and to admit that all is not well with the postal service in Toronto and district.
Through conversation with one of the managers of a postal station in Toronto over the week end I am inf ormed that station managers are being flooded with telephone calls and letters expressing severe criticisms of the system as it now exists, and that this condition obtains to the point where life is almost unbearable for them. At the week end immediately preceding the last one there were five routes in the constituency of South York that were not covered. Last week there was one route, in the area in which I live, on which there were no deliveries on Tuesday or Thursday. Further, a daily newspaper from Hamilton, which would be carried as second-class mail, was not delivered daily; four copies were delivered on Saturday. Naturally the citizens are complaining of a service which obliges them to accept, in one day, delivery of four issues of a newspaper which should be delivered daily.

Post Office Act
I was told by postal employees over the week end that in some of the Toronto stations neither the sorters nor the carriers have been able to keep abreast of their work. They are always behind, both in sorting and in delivering. It is obvious, therefore, that the situation in Toronto and district has not yet cleared up. It is not just a matter of having mail delivery at six or seven o'clock at night; rather it is one of having any mail delivery at all during one or two days of the week. This condition has arisen through the introduction of the one delivery a day system, which has come as a blanket order or blueprint from head office in Ottawa, without any effort to find out, through experiment in some of the larger centres, such as Toronto, just how the system would work out.
The blanket order was sent out across the country stating that the walks were to be telescoped so that one out of every three men was to be relieved, and this was done without the department having any knowledge of the disruption it would cause in the postal service. Not only has there been disruption in the system, but there has been a serious break-down in public relations. I believe in the past the Post Office Department has enjoyed as satisfactory public relations as any other department of government, but so far as my area is concerned, it has now sacrificed in large measure that satisfactory relationship.
In Toronto the change has resulted in the loss of a considerable number of permanent staff. The post office is finding it impossible to replace these experienced members with efficient help. I am informed that most of the help the department is now getting is sent from the employment offices, where the unemployed are given the choice of either taking a job with the post office or of having no unemployment insurance. The result is that not only is the Post Office Department getting inexperienced employees, but they are inefficient as well, and are thus slowing up the service.
I do not think anything can be done about retracing steps so far as the change is concerned. I am told that today it would be impossible for the Post Office Department to go back to the system of two deliveries, even if it wanted to. There is just not enough help available to reinstitute a system of two deliveries a day, even if the department so desired.	.
I was surprised to learn that the ratio of temporary to permanent employees in the Post Office Department is twenty per cent. An estimate I made in the Toronto area would indicate that the percentage of temporary to permanent employees is much higher than that. One of the complaints postal employees

are registering is that they have been kept on for years as temporary employees, without being given permanent employment, with the result that they have become disillusioned. The whole feature of permanency, as applied to the section of the civil service connected with the Post Office Department, has been destroyed, and this has had a disrupting effect upon the entire service. The department is probably doing all that can be done at the present time; but the whole trouble lies in the fact that this system of one delivery a day was instituted by headquarters at Ottawa through a blanket order applicable across the country without their first having a proper study made, and without any effort on their part to find out before the order was issued just what the effect would be in a centre like Toronto.
The minister has stated that there is competition from private enterprise in the matter of wages, and he has stated also that a shortage of manpower exists; but these things existed all through the war. During the war there was a much greater shortage of manpower than there is today, and there was the same competition from private enterprise, but there was no disruption of postal service.	We went
through the war without any disruption of that most essential service. There were good relations between the Post Office Department and the public, and there was reasonable contentment on the part of the employees with their working conditions and pay. That has been disrupted because of the steps which have been taken, and I do not think the post office is going to be able to remedy this condition for a long time to come.
I think it unfortunate that this disruption has taken place. All that can be done is for the department to continue taking the steps they are taking. I understand that surveys are being made, but it will be some time before the data collected can be tabulated and the necessary steps taken to remedy the situation. If this idea of carrying employees of the department for years on a temporary basis-this applies to other departments as well-were discontinued and employees given a permanent status after a reasonable length of time, I think the situation would be eased somewhat.
The practice of the civil service carrying over fifty per cent of its personnel for years on a temporary basis is nothing but a cheap labour racket. That is all it is. There is no reason in the world why any department should carry such a high percentage of its employees for years on a temporary basis.
In view of the situation that has developed I think the Post Office Department will have to give serious consideration to increasing



II, 1951

[Stage Direction]
the scale of wages paid to postal employees. Never a week goes by but members of parliament receive copies of the advertisements put out by the Post Office Department for letter carriers, porters and other inside help. As the minister has said, the department is not getting enough help, and certainly is not getting the efficient type of help that it needs. This is the result partly of the disruption which has taken place, partly of the adverse advertising which the Post Office Department has received within the last two or three months, and partly of the way in which those who are employed have been subjected to working hours that are longer than necessary over a long period of time without any assurance of overtime pay.
The minister's statement last week that these employees would be paid for their overtime has had and will have a favourable effect. But I still think that before the Postmaster General can put his department on an efficient basis, consideration will have to be given to increasing the salaries paid to postal employees. Otherwise he is just not going to be able to get suitable help to enable him to give sufficient and efficient service to the public.
Agar Rodney Adamson: Mr. Chairman, I want to corroborate everything the hon. member for York South has said. Conditions almost identical to those he has mentioned exist in my district, except that they may be slightly worse. I am informed that last week there were no less than six postal walks which could not be serviced for days at a time, and that the postal authorities in Toronto had to ask members of their staff who were doing other things to fill in as postal carriers in order to have the mail delivered.
The delivery of mail transcends any dol-lars-and-cents consideration. You just cannot put it simply and solely on an economic basis. The delivery of mail is part of our economic and social life, and we cannot have it interfered with if the work of the country is to be carried on efficiently. Therefore we are faced directly with the following problem.
At the present time the Post Office Department is having great difficulty in getting personnel to handle its rapidly increasing business in the Toronto area and particularly in the suburbs as represented by the ridings of York South and York West. If men cannot be obtained to undertake this work-chiefly for economic reasons, although there are others as well-then we must be prepared either to increase the rates charged for the delivery of mail, or to have the Post Office Department operate with a deficit. There are no other ways out of the difficulty.
Post Office Act
I have found the postal authorities extremely co-operative. Every day some member of the Toronto district postal office is in York West investigating a complaint or trying to iron out some frightfully difficult situation which has arisen. In practically every case they come to me, or to the ratepayers' association or to the industry which has complained, and say that because of the regulations they cannot make the change that is asked for. If the regulations are the cause of the slowing up in postal deliveries, then I suggest that consideration should be given to altering them.
As I say, this business of the post office and the delivery of mail transcends any purely economic consideration. The carrying of heavier and heavier loads by the letter carriers is something that must be remedied. I realize that the mail is there and that it has to be carried out; but when the volume of mail becomes so great that men cannot possibly lift it and deliver it, then something must be done. With all the good will in the world on the part of the minister and the department, unless extra help is made available that mail is going to remain undelivered. It is simply a physical matter; there is not the physical strength to do the job, and unless you make it attractive enough for people to undertake this work, the situation is not going to be remedied.
I have great sympathy for the Postmaster General and his employees. I know the problems they are facing, particularly in a district such as mine, which is growing at such an extraordinary rate. I want, though, to mention once more the matter of sub-post offices. In the several cases I have brought to the attention of the minister we' thought we had all the arrangements made, but at the last moment they blew up in our faces, to use a common expression. It was impossible to get proper accommodation even after the postal authorities had toured the district. Presumably that is because the department could not offer people enough to induce them to undertake this work; and if that is because of the regulations, then the regulations should be changed so this work will be made attractive and people will undertake it. Large districts now are almost completely without mail service, or the only post office available is a considerable distance away. In my district, and I imagine this is the case around most large cities, transportation is a problem. As a result mail is now picked up perhaps once or twice a week, and collecting mail at a sub-post office is no longer a matter of a few minutes; you have to line up and wait for a half hour or more before you can get your mail. That situation is intolerable,

Post Office Act
and I think something should be done, either through the civil service commission or the department itself, so that this work, which is just as essential as any other work in Canada, may be carried on efficiently.
Finally I would ask the Postmaster General if he can give me the wage scale in three principal classifications of employees, mail porters, postal delivery men and some other classification, in 1939 and today. Then I have this suggestion to make: that if we cannot clear up the situation through the present machinery, a committee of this house be set up next session so that the whole question of the Post Office Department may be gone into. Whether it means we shall have to pay more for the service, or that the post office will have to operate at a deficit, the facts should be presented to this parliament so that the people of Canada will know what they are facing. They should know whether the present intolerable conditions have come about because of the regulations, or because of inflationary pressure or for what other reason, and whether they will have to accept either an increase in the rates or be prepared to have the post office operate at a loss. These are technical problems which I believe should be considered next session by a committee of this house.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: When the Postmaster General was making some remarks a little while ago he referred to men going into the armed forces. He did not say whether or not there was objection to this, but there is a question I want to ask in that connection. This morning I received a letter from a permanent civil servant, a railway mail clerk operating from Charlottetown to Sackville. On May 29 he enlisted in the active army for three years, with the understanding that he would go with the 27th infantry brigade. This man had fourteen years of service with the post office and three and one-half years in the last war, and here is his complaint. The operations branch of the postal department of Ottawa wrote the inspector at Charlottetown stating that the civil service commission had not yet issued orders that a civil servant may enlist in the armed forces; the civil service commission did not issue leave of absence covering the men who enlisted in the 25th until lately, and those who have enlisted in the 27th have not been granted this leave of absence by the postal department. His question is: Will he, by going overseas, have lost his job, and will he also lose out on his retiring allowance?
I do not know anything about this man except that he appears to be a genuine civil servant, and I should like to know whether the department issues these letters to men

who sign up. It would certainly break down their morale if that is the practice. I believe this man and others in the same position should be given some satisfaction as soon as possible.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: The answer to the question is contained in what the hon. member just read. The civil service commission has not yet given a clear directive as to what must be done.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Is the Post Office Department governed by the civil service commission in regard to men joining the armed forces?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Not only that, but also in respect to appointments.
With regard to the question I was asked a minute ago by the hon. member for York West, a comparison of salaries, for the sake of simplification I shall give the maximum salaries. In 1939 for carriers the remuneration was $1,500; in 1950, $2,628; porters, $1,500 and $2,496; clerks, $1,740 and $2,904.


Mr. Gibson:: Will the Postmaster General
tell me whether the $2,628 for mail carriers is the salary in the largest office?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Yes, of course.


John Lambert Gibson: Why is there a differential
in the salary scale between a town like Port Alberni and the city of Vancouver?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: It is a question of revenue.


John Lambert Gibson: One of the great difficulties
we have had in Port Alberni is the obtaining of mail carriers. In the district we have one of the highest wage rates in Canada. The saw mills pay $1.40 per hour, so we have difficulty in obtaining letter carriers. Why should the revenue of the office be the standard for setting the remuneration of a man who is doing comparable work to that which is performed in a larger office? Is that a sound basis?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: That is the only standard
we have to go by. If we increase the salaries in one part of the country, we have to be prepared to do the same thing throughout the rest of the country. If we increase the salary scale for Port Alberni, we would have to be prepared to do the same thing for a similar office situated in the east.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I should like to ask one
more question with reference to the answer I got to the last one. I do not think it is satisfactory. I want to send a telegram to this man; have I got to go back to the civil service commission and consult them about this employee? I believe the postal department should have some control in this matter; instead of a member taking it up,

the department should take it up. Surely this veteran is entitled to a straight answer so that he can try to get out of the army and get back to his employment, or so that he will know what is going to happen to him.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: The answer to the first question is yes. The answer to the second question is that the hon. member can be assured that as soon as we get the necessary directive there will be no delay in the post office giving him his letter.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: There will be no delay in
receiving that from the commission; are we assured of that?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: That will be a directive from the civil service commission, and I cannot answer that.


Mr. Herridge:: I am pleased to hear the
Postmaster General say that the situation is continuously being reviewed to correct mistakes. From what has happened, it is obvious that his department took hasty action without sufficient thought. I think it was unfortunate action, because it was taken in connection with one of the lower paid groups of employees. As the Postmaster General knows, it has caused a good many men to leave the service of the Post Office Department.
I had a few words to say on this matter on an occasion when we had the opportunity to raise grievances. But since that time I have had a number of letters from trade union organizations in the cities of Trail and Nelson, bringing to my attention the particularly difficult circumstances under which mail carriers work in that area. These two cities, Mr. Chairman, are situated on the sides of mountains. The mail carriers have to carry mail on routes which in many cases have grades of up to thirty per cent. In addition to that, in climbing from one street to another there are steps that are on a forty-five degree angle, and of such a height that they would reach from the base of the parliament buildings to the top of the tower. If the deputy postmaster general had to carry one of these sacks of mail up these steps we would get the matter rectified very quickly.
It is easy to make plans for level communities like Ottawa, but in that area we have particularly difficult conditions. I ask that the whole question be reconsidered so far as that locality is concerned. I realize the necessity for saving where possible, but the problem is so serious in my district that not only have labour organizations been writing to me, but elderly ladies, who have 80709-248
Post Office Act
seen the postmen going along the streets, write to say that the Post Office Department is making poorly paid pack horses out of our letter carriers. I believe this shows that the change of route was made without sufficient consideration. I ask that the matter be reviewed in that district, because of the exceptional conditions under which these mail carriers work.
I should like to ask the Postmaster General by whose recommendation these changes are made in any given locality. At what level is that official? Who is responsible for the final decision? I am quite sure that no one who was directly informed as to the circumstances that exist in the cities of Trail and Nelson would have made the changes in the first instance. I believe there has been some improvement, but there is a necessity for more improvement if these men are to be treated fairly.
I should like to say a word in support of the remarks made by the member for Comox-Alberni, who at times does make some contribution to the debate in this house. In his remarks the Postmaster General indicated that a number of the employees were leaving his department because they could get higher rates of pay in industry. That is happening in the district I have the honour to represent, because there is a relatively high wage scale in that area. Lumbering, mining and smelting pay relatively high wages in Canada compared to those received by the letter carriers. This means that only the older men, who cannot obtain employment in the woods, mines or smelters, are going to apply for these positions. Older men who do this type of work will find it a greater burden than some of the younger men who have resigned because they were able to take heavier jobs. I believe that is going to increase the difficulties of the department; and in this connection I did want t,o bring to the attention of the Postmaster General the unusual and serious conditions in the cities in my constituency.


Mr. Wright:: While I sympathize with these people in Toronto and other places who are only getting their mail once a day instead of twice, I want to say a word for some people in other parts of this dominion who were getting their mail twice a week and now are not getting it at all. In certain rural areas in my constituency, I believe four or five of these rural routes that were in operation five or six years ago are now closed. Only one route is operating today.
In those cases where rural routes are established, the courier travels from thirty to thirty-five miles, seventeen miles out and seventeen miles back. Quite often there was a rural post office serving the community

Post Office Act
before the routes were established, and now that these routes have been discontinued the rural post offices have not been re-established. This leaves many people from fifteen to twenty miles from the closest post office.
The reason given for closing most of these routes is that people will not bid on the contracts for the delivery of mail. The contracts are usually let at from $700 to $750 for a year. That, is not much of an income, and it is very seldom that these people can take on much other work. They have to attend to these routes two days a week, and they have to maintain equipment, either a car or a truck for the delivery of the mail. They have to deliver it in all kinds of weather conditions, winter and summer. The result has been that many of these rural routes are closed. Will the minister give us the number of routes in Saskatchewan that have been closed during the last five years, and the number of new routes that have been established?
Speaking earlier in the debate, one of the members said that the delivery of mail should transcend purely economic considerations. I believe that, and I believe that the people in rural areas, who live there because they must do so in order to produce the food for the rest of this dominion, are entitled to better mail delivery service than they are getting at the present time. I bring the matter to the minister's attention because I think a mistake has been made in the closing of the number of rural routes that have been closed in western Canada during the last few years.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: On that point, I may say to the hon. member for Melfort that not one single rural route in Canada pays its own way.


Percy Ellis Wright: I realize that.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: And as to the post offices, the great majority of them do not pay their way. We are therefore giving more service than is justified by the revenue we are receiving.
On the question of the closing of post offices, it has been discovered that, with the increase of the rural routes, so few people were served by post offices in small towns-four, five or six-we thought it was good economy to serve everybody by the rural route rather than have the post offices remain open.
If, as the hon. member suggests, there are some of these rural routes that have been abandoned, if he will kindly send me the names of them I will see that the post offices are reopened.


Percy Ellis Wright: I thank the minister for that. But again I want to point out that you cannot put the matter on a purely economic basis.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: We do not. That is exactly what I said.


Percy Ellis Wright: Nor can you use the argument that you do not realize adequate revenue. The revenue for those routes may come from the city of Winnipeg, because it is from there that a great deal of the mail is sent which is received over these routes. You have no way of determining their value. Therefore I do not think it is fair to put the matter on an economic basis. The basis on which we should operate the post offices is the basis of service to the most people in the Dominion of Canada.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: That is exactly what we do.


Percy Ellis Wright: You are not doing it altogether. I should like to see you do it just a little bit more than is being done now, having regard to rural mail delivery.


Robert Fair: For the last fifteen or twenty minutes, Mr. Chairman, I have been waiting to say what the hon. member for Melfort has just said. In that case it was Wright; now it is Fair and Wright. I hope the Postmaster General and his deputy will take notice of what the hon. member for Melfort has just said.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: And what is fair.


Robert Fair: And what is supported by Fair. During the early part of this sitting we listened to discussion of the difficulties in the cities. It is not my intention for one moment to oppose mail delivery in the cities once or twice a day. I am fully aware that this service is necessary; and I was sorry when the Postmaster General and his colleagues found it necessary to eliminate one of the services in many of the cities that had been receiving twice-a-day service. But I think the minister will agree that if it were not for the rural population in Canada there would not be any need for either towns or cities all across this country. They are there for the service of the rural communities. The sooner we recognize that fact, the sooner perhaps will better service be given to the rural communities in postal and other matters.
There is a problem, I believe, all across Canada with regard to rural routes being shut down at least temporarily. In my own case I have been dealing for some little time with the other officials of the department. I have not yet brought the matter to the attention of the Postmaster General or his deputy, and I am not doing so now. But apparently the practice has been that where contracts expire and tenders are called for again, if in the opinion of the officials administering the service, a tender is too high, they wait for a

while and again, in some cases after pressure is brought to bear upon them, call for new tenders. If those tenders still are too high, they let the matter drift, with the idea perhaps that somebody will be foolish enough to put in a tender on which he will lose money and still continue the service. That is one of the things to which I take serious objection. Where a tender is too high, I feel that at least the service should be continued until somebody is found who will put in a satisfactory tender.
In one case in which I am particularly interested I know that the tender put in is not too high, but because it is higher than it was four years ago the people on that particular route are obliged to go without service. That situation is now running into the third month. Yet when those people are attempting at the present time to take off last year's crop and to sow another crop for harvesting this year, they are compelled to go quite a number of miles for their mail. They are left without service simply because we must economize in the Post Office Department.
I understand that that complaint is general from the Atlantic to the Pacific in, connection with rural mail routes. A little later on I will perhaps take this particular case up with the deputy minister, and later, if necessary, with the minister. I am not mentioning any names at the present time. But again I want to support the complaint that has been made by the hon. member for Melfort. The Postmaster General will hear from me a little later on unless service is restored in the near future.


Mr. Higgins:: As the minister knows, the main post office in Newfoundland is the general post office in St. John's. The next important post office is known as the east end branch at St. John's. It is in connection with the operation of the east end branch of the general post office in St. John's that I want to speak for a few moments.
I have had a letter from a prominent newspaper man in St. John's; and in order that there may be no misunderstanding about the matter, may I say that it is a newspaper that supports the government. It is in connection with what he writes that I wish to speak; I want to draw the contents of his letter to the minister's attention. In his letter he states:
Since we joined Canada the postal service has deteriorated. For example, the east end branch has been catering to a growing clientele . . . We are within eighty yards of that post office but have had to transfer our business to the general, a mile away. Why? Several reasons. One, mail dropped into the east end, even if for boxholders there, is sent to the general for franking and then returned
80709-248|
Post Office Act
to the east end. Think of the delay here; at least a day. The east end does not cash money orders, although it will sell them; and neither will it give out parcels. Air mails are sometimes not delivered until the next day if arriving at the general late in the afternoon. The east end is not open at night as it used to be ... it is impossible to pick up mail after regular business hours. The other night, after I heard Mr. St. Laurent's message to the Commons, I wrote an article for-
A Canadian company, a mainland newspaper.
-and posted it at the general at 10.30 p.m. The caretaker said, the air mail had been picked up for the next plane which was not going out until 1.30 or 2 a.m., and my letter would have to wait for the next plane, not before noon. Why the long delay between closing-off time and the departure of the planes? The airport is no more than twenty minutes slow driving, from the city, and midnight would be ample time to close off reception of mail. It must be emphasized, of course, that the present poor mail service is not due to the staff. They are the same as pre-confederation when we had a better distribution and the east end was open day and night, Sundays and holidays. The new order came in shortly after union and is the work of Ottawa. The carrier system has also been cut down to one delivery a day.
I will not go any further into the matter, except to emphasize once again that this branch serves not only a large part of the business community of St. John's, but also a considerable number of the outlying settlements. I feel that the minister is fully aware of that fact. I should like him to take the matter into consideration. I do not know whether he can give me an answer now.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I will certainly take the matter into consideration. As to what is right and fair, the number of rural routes that have been increased in the last four years is 237. The number of persons served is 65,000 more than it was in 1946.


Robert Fair: May I ask the minister how many routes have been discontinued temporarily all across the country?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I have not that figure; I will endeavour to get it.


Mr. Brooks:: I was going to ask the same question. I might add that I had a note here to make some remarks along the same lines as those made by the hon. member for Melfort and the hon. member for Battle River, but we in the maritimes have always had to take second place to the west. The greatest curse we have is our modesty.
It has seemed to me for some time that there was a peculiar situation in this country when in the towns and cities the people could get delivery of mail twice a day, and in the country districts many of them, as the hon. member for Melfort has said, get delivery of mail twice a week. That was the complaint that I wished to make.

Post Office Act
Frankly, I wish to congratulate the Postmaster General on having changed the system to only one delivery of mail a day in the cities. In the past there has been very great discrimination all over this country so far as delivery of mail is concerned. There is no reason in the world why people living in a city or a large town should receive their mail both in the morning and in the afternoon, while the people living in the country districts receive it perhaps two or three times a week.
It is a difficult matter to keep people in the country and on the farms. The receiving of mail, the receiving of the daily papers, as pointed out by the leader of the opposition the other day, is an encouragement to people to remain in the country districts. I repeat that I heartily support the statements made by the hon. member for Battle River and the hon. member for Melfort.
I have a question with regard to the appointment of postmasters. I think some of them are called revenue postmasters in the smaller towns. Once a postmaster is appointed, has he the authority to appoint his assistants and helpers? Are they appointed by the civil service commission?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: The other day we went fully into the system of appointment of postmasters. In some instances the assistants in the large post offices in the revenue division are appointed directly by the civil service commission. In smaller revenue post offices, recommendations are made by the postmasters, which are sent to us, and we either accept them or reject them, as the case may be. In all cases they are paid by the department.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: My understanding was that in some instances a postmaster was allowed a certain amount for the expenses of his post office, and out of that his salary came, and he also employed his help.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: That has been changed in recent years.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Anyway, I have had complaints from different sections that people appointed, sometimes not by the civil service commission but through the postmaster or in some other way, were not altogether satisfactory and efficient. The public have made that complaint. What supervision or check-up has the minister's department over these employees who have been appointed in this manner?
While I am on my feet I wish to ask the minister a question with reference to the delivery of mail to summer residents. The minister knows that in the summer a great many people go out from the towns and cities

to summer houses, and there has to be a change in the delivery of mails. I know of some instances. I refer in particular to Kennebecasis island near Saint John, where in the wintertime there are only one or two families, but in the summer there are forty-five or more summer residents. The post office was closed. What provision does the minister's department make in cases of that kind?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: In some places where there are a sufficient number of vacationers we do establish summer post offices.
As to the other question that the hon. member asked, our inspectors keep an official check on all these assistants as they go along.


Mr. Quelch:: What basis is used in setting the remuneration of a postmaster in a small country point? I ask that question because several cases have been drawn to my attention in which the rates appear to be scandalously low. A year ago I drew the attention of the department to one small hamlet, namely, Lanfine, where they were advertising that they would have to close the post office unless they received an application for the job of postmaster. The reason they had such a great deal of difficulty in getting an application for that job was that they were paying actually less than $1 a day. Naturally it is not easy to get a man in there at that rate.
Then I have another point. In a larger village they are paying $83 a month, but out of that the postmaster has to pay rent for the building and the cost of fuel and light. It is not a living wage. I know that preference is given to veterans, and where a veteran is getting a fairly high pension he may be able to do this job and make a living. Surely we should be able to pay a rate which would make it possible for a postmaster to make a living out of the job, instead of using pensioners in the form of cheap labour.
I realize that the revenue from some of these points may be very small, but on the other hand, while these hamlets may be small they do provide a service for a large area, and it seems to me that there should be some minimum below which the remuneration should not be allowed to fall. What is the basis?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: The question is threefold, as I see it. First of all, these small offices are paid in relation to revenue. Second, the revenue in each of these small offices to which my hon. friend refers is invariably below the salary that we pay to the postmasters. Third, the hon. member has referred to the fact that these postmasters have to pay for light, heat, and so forth. Over and

above the salary we do pay a rental allowance to cover these costs. Fourth, and most important, the job of these postmasters is not considered to be a full-time job. They are given a certain amount, not to cover the salaries on the basis of a full-time job- it is not an amount sufficient for them to live on-but something extra that we pay them to carry on part-time jobs. I think that is the answer.


Mr. Bryce:: This may not be the opportune time to ask for anything, after hearing the complaints of various members, but I am really concerned about my constituency, because it is one which is growing by leaps and bounds, and has for the last few years. Postal services have not grown along with it. I should like to draw the minister's attention to the municipality of Charleswood, where they have no mail service. The people who are living in Charleswood have been used to mail service. They were the original settlers in Charleswood. Now we have gradually moved the people from Winnipeg into the suburbs, and they do not have that service. The minister's department was good enough to give me all the necessary papers in connection with getting the service, but things always seemed to crop up-perhaps they did not have a cement sidewalk, or something like that. I am wondering if it would be possible to have a rural mail service in that area. Perhaps it would not be suitable, but surely something can be done. I am asking the minister now if he would be good enough to encourage the general post office in Winnipeg to continue the survey of the district.
i have talked both to the minister and to his deputy about jumping-off places; but the jumping-off place three or four years ago is certainly not the jumping-off place today. While the department is studying ways of economizing it wants to maintain the old jumping-off place. I would ask the minister in all sincerity if he would have a survey of West Kildonan and St. James, and see if something cannot be done by way of supplying a mail service to Charleswood.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I shall certainly do that.


John Lambert Gibson: Some discussion has taken place about remuneration for different sizes of towns. I can understand that a postmaster's remuneration should be on that basis, because, after all, a post office with a revenue of $20,000 does not entail as much administrative work as one with a revenue of $40,000. On the other hand, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Kootenay West, it is possible that in the smaller towns it would be even more difficult for the letter carriers. In those
Post Office Act
smaller towns sidewalks might not be in as good condition, and transportation facilities would not be as satisfactory. I do not think it is fair to assume that because the revenue of an office is down, the letter carriers do not do as much work as is done by the carriers in the cities. I know that a worker in a small saw mill will have to work harder than a worker in a large saw mill. The man in a large and efficient saw mill would have to do less work. I ask the minister if he would discuss this matter with a view to working out a proper basis for letter carriers.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: It is not a question of discussing it with my officials, because they are convinced in the matter. It is a question of discussing it with the civil service commission and having its approval.


John Lambert Gibson: You will consider doing that?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Yes.


Mr. Ferguson:: Mr. Chairman, I wish all the people across Canada who voted Tory at the last election could be here to listen to the discussion in the committee this morning. They must be nodding their heads, in those forty-two constituencies which elected Tory candidates, and saying, "I told you so; I told you so." Certainly they must, when they realize the condition of the Post Office Department, and when it is proven, by fact and statement from one end of the country to the other, that it is inefficient, and that inefficiency now prevails. It must be a great laugh for those people who voted for the Tory party; there is no doubt about it.
We find a man volunteering to fight for his country, a man who writes, and properly so, to his member of parliament-and if those gentlemen behind the curtains will be a little quieter, I will proceed. We find a man who has joined the armed forces of this country writing a letter in which he tries to find out whether he is going to be penalized for daring to volunteer. And, according to the statement of the Postmaster General, all this is in the hands of the civil service commission. Instead of the Postmaster General being able to speak for the government and being in a position to say that a man who occupied a position in Canada, and who volunteered and is accepted in His Majesty's forces, will be able to return to the same position, and with the same seniority as he held before, it is referred to the civil service commission. We are told in the House of Commons today that this is left to the good graces of the civil service commission.
That is not so in all cases. We see that the commission, that great body of geniuses, is not consulted about appointments to smaller post offices. All that is passed on for political

Post Office Act
plums and recommendations. But our soldiers do not receive the benefit of political plums. They must wait for the civil service commission to see whether they are to be properly remunerated if they dare to volunteer for service in the armed forces.
Well, any of those people in the forty-two constituencies that elected Tory representatives must be laughing at the people in all the other constituencies across this country. And I say this, that at the next election the people of Canada will remember. They will remember the laughter of the forty-two constituencies who voted for Tory candidates. They will remember where the government of Canada stood when it came to treatment of soldiers serving overseas. This is only the beginning of the proof of the fact that this government, in all its departments, is deteriorating at a speed the people will soon recognize.
The postal department is a monopoly, and all the people of Canada must rely upon it for the delivery of mail. What are we getting? We have the undoubted and proven fact that there is not any department in any kind of activity that is as lax and inefficient as is the Post Office Department. I do not blame the Postmaster General. He is a man who is trying to do his job. He is a man with ability, and he is doing a good job in his department-and one must recognize that fact when he considers the lack of foresight and planning shown by the government.
This lack first became clear in connection with immigration. The representatives of [DOT]those forty-two constituencies have stated repeatedly on the floor of the House of Commons that we should keep pace with the growing demands of our country and of Canadians. We have pointed out that we need an increased population, and that we should increase our immigration to meet the required expansion. But we have heard members of the Liberal party state openly in the house that, while we should increase our population, they want to have it done in the natural way, and not . through the importation of immigrants from foreign lands. We now see the fallacy of that teaching. We find ourselves short of labour in all branches of government, including the Post Office Department.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order. This is a debate in connection with the Canada Post Office Act.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: All right, Mr. Chairman; I have included the post office. I could go on for an hour repeating complaints, justifiable complaints, and listening to explanations from the Postmaster General as to why we 
have this mess under which people receive their daily papers only once in four days. They are not having the required two-a-day delivery in cities, so that they could cope with their general business, and so that they could continue to compete in international trade. This simply cannot be done in the larger cities, where the mail is dumped at offices and delivered to factories only once a day. It is impossible during one period of the morning to attend to the mail for the entire twenty-four hours. It must be 'broken up, not only for the convenience of delivery, but so that it may be handled intelligently by those who receive it.
In the great city of Toronto people are receiving their mail two or three days late. This is not a condition that has grown up in the last two or three years. It is one that has finally developed after ten years of Liberal administration, and the unemployment brought about by the Liberal government in 1939. Because of the war brought on by Hitler there was some prosperity, but now we return to this condition brought about by the mismanagement of the Liberal party.


Mr. Shaw:: Section 5(b) refers to the
authority of the minister in the matter of making appointments. I should like to ask the minister if it is true that postmasters of accounting offices are appointed through the civil service commission.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: It is not a question whether
it is an accounting office; it is a question of revenue. All appointments to offices having an annual revenue of $3,000 and over are made through the civil service commission.


Frederick Davis Shaw: The minister has indicated that the compensation paid to postmasters in certain offices is determined by the revenue of the office; is that correct?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: That is correct.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Could we have the formula
that is used? For example, I notice that the revenue of different post offices varies considerably. The post office in my own home town had a revenue of $18,000 last year, whereas another post office in my constituency had a revenue of $26,000. What formula is used in determining the salary to be paid to the postmaster? I am not referring to those two cases specifically, but to post offices generally.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: There are thirty-four groups, and it might be simpler if I just placed this statement on Hansard. The statement follows:

Post Office Act
Salary Ranges
Postmasters (Revenue)
Yearly Revenue	Group	Remuneration	New Rates	Allowancesup to $ S 143 "	142	i	[DOT]S 120	S 132	Plus200	2	180	198	(a) Rent of premises.201 "	300	3	300	330	(b) Staff for night an301 "	400	4	360	396	ward duty.401 "	500	5	420	462	(c) Box equipment.501 "	600	6	480	528	(d) Insp. rural routes.601 "	700	7	540	594	701 "	.800	8	600	660	801 "	900	9	660	726	901 "	1,000	10	720	792	1,001 "	1,100	11	780	864	1,101 " 1,201 " 1,301 " 1,401 " 1,501 " 1,601 "	1,200	12	840	924	1,300	13	900	996	1,400	14	960	1,056	1,500	15	1,020	1,128	1,600	16	1,080	1,188	1,700	17	1,140	1,260	1,701 "	1,800	18	1,200	1,320	1,801 " 1,901 "	1,900	19	1,260	1,392	2,000	20	1,320	1,464	2,001 "	2,100	21	1,380	1,536	2,101 "	2,200	22	1,440	1,596	2,201 "	2,300	23	1,500	1,668	2,301 "	2,400	24	1,560	1,740	2,401 "	2,500	'.	25	1,620	1,812	2,501 "	2,600	26	1,680	1,S84	2,601 "	2,700	27	1,740	1,956	2,701 " 2,801 "	2,800	28	1,800	2,028	2,900	29	1,860	2,088	2,901 "	3,000	30	1,920	2,160	3,001 "	5,000	31	1,980 to 2,280	2,232 to 2,568	P.W.D. to look after accom-5,001 "	10,000	32	2,280 to 2,580	2,568 to 2,904	modation.10,001 "	20,000	33	2,580 to 2,880	2,904 to 3,240	20,001 "	50,000	34	2,880 to 3,180	3,240 to 3,576	
Assistants' Salaries
Group 31-$ 900(60) Group 32- 1,080(60) Group 33- 1,200(60) Group 34- 1,320(60)
New Rates
Group 31-$ 996(60) Group 32- 1,188(60) Group 33- 1,320(60) Group 34- 1,464(60)
	Only one
$1,260	
1,380($120)	$1,500
1,500(S120)	1,800
1,680($120)	2,040
	Only one
$1,392	
1,536(8120)	$1,688
1,668(8120)	2,028
1,884(8120)	2,292


Frederick Davis Shaw: By what method are members of the staffs appointed, and how is their remuneration determined?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: The same method.


Frederick Davis Shaw: What about hours of labour and compensation for overtime?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Where overtime can be
checked, it is paid at the regular rate, but in the case of certain positions, such as letter
carriers, where no check can be made of the time sipent, usually we do not pay overtime. As I indicated last week, following the inauguration of the one mail service per day we are having official checkers go over the route. When it is found that any one route necessitates regular overtime, overtime will be paid.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I was referring to employees in the post office itself rather than to the mail

Post Office Act
carriers. What rate is used to compute the overtime paid in various offices, accounting and non-accounting?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: It is computed on the basis of a forty-four hour week.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Is the compensation paid for overtime the regular rate?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Yes.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Is it simply a matter of the postmaster in a local post office reporting to the district office that such and such an employee has worked overtime; is it as simple as that?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Just about as simple as that.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I want to get this perfectly clear. They are just paid the regular rate for overtime?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Exactly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not time and a half?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: No.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I assume the rate of compensation would be arrived at by dividing the weekly rate by forty-four hours, and that would be paid for overtime?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: That is correct.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Section 5 (1) (a) provides for the establishment and closing of post offices. I think the Postmaster General will agree that the closing of a small post office may be a serious matter. Two post offices were closed in my constituency, and if the department had come to me in the first place and asked my opinion they would not have closed them and then have had to reopen them. I believe the department's source of information is not sufficiently reliable to warrant the closing of a post office without first obtaining the viewpoint of those who represent the people.
Paragraph (c) (iv) provides for the payment of indemnities. I should like to know how the indemnity is fixed. Paragraph (e) provides for the removal of postal employees. The Postmaster General seems to have power to dismiss employees, and I should like to know whether such employees have any court of appeal to which they can go. I know of cases in other departments where men have been let out without a proper inquiry being made, with the result that they have lost all the money they had paid in. Men have been dismissed for some political whim, with the results I have mentioned.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
TMr. Shaw.]
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: When the committee took recess at one o'clock I was asking one or two questions. Section 5(l)(h) provides that the Postmaster General may-
-authorize agents to sell to the public postage stamps and stamped forms and envelopes and allow to such agents a commission not exceeding two per cent of the amount of their sales.
.Last year in this connection I brought to the attention of the minister the breaking of the contract with the stamp vendor in Charlottetown. That man has given some fifty-one years of service in selling stamps to the people of Charlottetown and vicinity. Actually it is more than fifty-one years; on the basis of an eight-hour day he has given over seventy-five years of service, and now the department is trying to get rid of him. My objection is to the way they are breaking their contract with him so that he will not be able to make a living and will have to resign.
Over fifty years ago this man signed a contract with the Postmaster General for this concession. That contract is still in force, and I do not think it can be broken even under this bill, in which so much authority is granted the minister. How are they breaking it? I have no objection to meter machines, but at the same time the operation of these machines has reduced this man's earning capacity, since the department are not paying him on the postage sold by these machines, as they should according to the contract. They may say he is not selling stamps, but the postage issued by a meter is recognized by the department, and he should be paid his commission on that postage.
Here is the way it affects him. He has never made very high wages, and I went over the details with him so I could make a comparison over the last five years. As I said before, this man had an agreement with the Postmaster General calling for payment of a commission of two per cent on all stamps sold. Today there are probably thirty-five meter machines in the large business houses of Charlottetown. In 1945 Mr. Brown sold $135,630 worth of stamps, on which he received his two per cent commission. Then the meter machines were put in, and their number has gradually increased. This has reduced his sale of stamps to a little over $100,000. There is a difference of some $25,000 or more on which he has lost tne commission, and in that way his salary has been reduced from an average of about $2,600 to about $2,000. In other words the department have reduced this man's earning power and benefited themselves by some $600 a year.

II they want to get rid of this man, why not give him a small pension for the rest of his days? Even at best they will not be long, and already the department owes him at least $2,500 which has been taken from him by breaking the contract. Suppose this man had not been efficient; suppose he had in some way broken the contract; how long would he have lasted with the department? I want the minister and those who are coaching him to understand this.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: This is a repetition of last year, so I know it.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I want you to see the injustice you are doing to a good citizen of this country. This man puts in twelve hours a day, though I believe he has been given an extra half hour off recently. He has no dinner hour, no rest periods of any kind. If he goes out he must pay an assistant. If he wants one or two holidays a year he has to pay an assistant. He has given excellent service. A year ago he was honoured by the city on having completed fifty years of service without a demerit of any kind. I doubt if a score of people in the department have a record as good. Last year, according to the record, I was promised that some consideration would be given him. But there was a qualifying phrase-that he was not an employee of the department. According to these new regulations, however, I believe he is now an employee, so that'excuse is washed out and consideration surely can be given to Aubrey F. Brown, the stamp vendor in the post office at Charlottetown. Suppose you do force him out and sell the stamps at the postal wicket; that will not be an economy measure, because it will cost the department twice as much. These men all work an eight-hour day, while stamps must be sold during twelve hours of the day. I want the Postmaster General to give me some statement to indicate that justice and fair play will be meted out to one of the best officials in the department-in Charlottetown, Ottawa or anywhere else. I hope the minister has thought of it in time to give some consideration to this matter.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: The member for Queens
referred to a matter before the recess at one o'clock which I think calls for an answer. He suggested that people were dismissed from the Post Office Department for political reasons-or political whims, I think he said- without any sort of inquiry. That might have been true years ago, but it is not true any longer. The circumstances surrounding the dismissal of any person for these considerations are inquired into by a board appointed by the Department of Justice. It makes a
Post Office Act
report one way or the other. The Postmaster General has no say in it, but has to follow the report of this board of inquiry.
Now, as to the other question asked by the member for Queens, it concerns the same matter that he brought up last year. This man is a contractor for the department and not an employee. The present act does not make him an employee. The hon. member has to decide whether or not it is a contract, because in part of his argument he said the man was receiving some sort of salary. He is receiving compensation on a contract. When we are acting with a contractor, we cannot give him any sort of pension.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: That is quite right, Mr. Chairman. I did not say he was receiving a salary. He is on a commission basis. What I ask is that the department fulfil the contract, and not rob him of $500 or $600 a year which it is giving to someone who is making the meter machines. If he is not an employee you cannot deal otherwise with him, but are you not duty bound to live up to your agreement? It was entered into about fifty-one years ago. I should like to know whether or not you will give him the two per cent commission on all stamps sold, according to the terms of the contract.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I shall have to review the file. I have not looked at it since last year. I will see what I can do.
This morning the hon. member for Queens referred to a letter concerning a certain man, and I told him we were awaiting some directive from the civil service commission giving authority to permit this man to join the forces, and indicating whether he could come back to the service with the same priorities and privileges as he had. While the hon. member was on his feet, the department received the necessary directives, and we shall put them into operation immediately.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I thank you for that. There are several others in the same category, and I shall inform them all.


Heber Harold Hatfield: How many vending contractors do you have? Why should the Post Office Department not own and operate these vending machines?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: That is the aim, and is one of the reasons why the number of these vending licences is going down all the time. I am sorry that" I have not the exact number of licensees, but our aim is to restrict them as much as possible, so as to have all the operations under the post office itself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I wish to pursue for a few minutes a matter that I
3912

Post Office Act
referred to on May 29. Before I do so I should like, as a city member, to support the plea that was made this morning by my deskmate, the hon. member for Melfort, and other members from rural ridings, for the best possible postal service in rural areas. I, for one, do not believe it is fair to judge a rural post office by the amount of revenue it derives from the sale of stamps. After all, it seems to me you have to take into consideration, particularly in western Canada, the amount of revenue that is taken in at Winnipeg, for example from the T. Eaton Company and other people, from the large volume of parcels and mail that is circulated in rural areas. If the mail order houses or some of the newspapers had to pay the actual cost of delivering their parcels or their periodicals to rural areas, the revenue from these sources at city centres would amount to a great deal. I want to support the position taken this morning by a number of members from rural areas. It does seem to me that this is one service we have to look at on an over-all basis. It is not a case of being able to ascertain whether or not each little district pays, but we are dealing with a service to the people of Canada. I believe it should be so regarded.
The matter I particularly wanted to pursue for a few minutes is one that I drew to the attention of the Postmaster General on the second reading of this bill. My remarks will be found commencing at page 3532 of Hansard for May 29. I refer to the case of mail couriers in the city of Winnipeg who work for contractors whose contracts are let under the provisions of the section with which we are now dealing, section 5, subsection 1, paragraph (o).
As I indicated on other occasions when I dealt with these mail couriers, the men who drive about in Winnipeg in what appear to be post office vehicles, picking up the mail from street letter boxes, are not employees of the post office at all, nor are the vehicles owned by the Post Office Department. These men are employees of the local contractor who contracted with the Post Office Department. Accordingly, the Post Office Department does not directly set the wages * or working conditions of those employees. The Post Office Department has some indirect influence on the wages and working conditions of these employees, because the contractors are able to pay such wages and provide such conditions as they feel they can provide out of the amount of the contract. .
To get down to the proverbial brass tacks, I should like to indicate to the committee some of the conditions under which these

men work. May I point out that their numbers, particularly in Winnipeg, are few. In fact, the latest information I have is that there are about thirty-five classed as mail couriers, the men who drive these vehicles about, picking up mail from letter boxes and performing certain related services. There will be a similar number of them in other cities of a similar size, and more of them in the larger cities. In Winnipeg, these men work for a rate of 83 cents per hour. I have before me information, for some eight or ten other employers in the city of Winnipeg, as to the rates of wages paid to people doing comparable work. For example, I have the rates for civic employees driving trucks. I have the rates for the Manitoba Cartage Company, Canadian Pacific Express Company, the Coca Cola Company, Thomas Jackson Fuel Company, McCurdy Fuel and Building Supplies, Winnipeg packing plants and so on. All of these other firms are paying wages higher than 83 cents an hour, which is the rate paid to these Winnipeg postal couriers. One of these firms, it is true, has a starting rate that is less than 83 cents an hour but after six months that firm's rate is 86 cents an hour; and that is the lowest of all the rates. But the rate paid by these post office contractors-not paid directly by the government but by the contractors that get a contract from the Post Office Department-is 83 cents an hour. There are no changes in that rate for additional service. That is the rate at which they start and that is the rate at which they are paid, no matter how many years they have been doing this work.
These men get no overtime pay. It is not a case of their getting time and a half or double time. They do not even get straight time for overtime pay. They do not get pay for legal holidays. If they get a legal holiday off, there is no pay for it. If they are required to work on a legal or statutory holiday, they get only straight time. They have no sick leave. They have no pension plan, although there is some group insurance. They get no pay for the period of time between trips. Let me put it this way. In order to draw their eight hours' pay, these men are required to be actually driving eight hours during the course of the day. But they are not permitted to work that eight hours simply by going in at eight o'clock in the morning and quitting at five o'clock in the afternoon. They actually have to be on trips to an aggregate of eight hours. The time in between trips that they may have to sit around in the post office waiting for the next trip to be made is not paid for. These men tell me that many of them have to put in up to twelve hours on the job in order to get in eight

hours for which they get paid, and that at the rate of 83 cents an hour. They get one week's holidays with pay; and that same one week with pay is all they get, no matter how many years they may have been in the employ of the contractor for whom they work.
Again I may say that if one goes over the chart that I have here showing the rates of pay and the working conditions for comparable work in the city of Winnipeg of these other employees, on the score of holidays with pay and on every other score those working for the other firms do much better than do these men. They are doing an important work, an important service to the people of Canada. We depend heavily on the work that all our postal employees do. The handling of the mail is an important task, and what could be more important than picking it up from the street letter boxes and seeing to it that it gets to the central post office and so on? Yet the general public tends to think of them as post office employees and tends to assume that they get whatever conditions of pay and employment go with service in the Post Office Department.
When these employees complain about their rates of pay or their working conditions -for example if they bring the matter to the attention of a member of parliament and the member of parliament brings it to the attention of the Post Office Department-the immediate reply is:	These are not our
employees; they are the employees of certain contractors in the city of Winnipeg and it is to those contractors that the men must appeal for any improvements that they desire. On occasion the contractors have been impressed with the plight of their employees and have asked the Post Office Department for an upward adjustment in the contract so that they could pay better wages. The request of the contractor is not always granted, and the contractor does not always make the request. There are times when he just gives to the employees his own answer that nothing can be done about it. To the credit of the Post Office Department I want to say that I know of one or two cases in which they have increased the amount of the contract with the specific understanding that it would be used to improve the wages of the employees of the contractors. But the position of these employees, as to conditions of employment and wages, is forever lagging behind that of men doing comparable work.
One answer to this problem of an immediate nature might be for the department to agree to increase the amount of the contract in cities like Winnipeg or any other cities where a similar situation obtains. But that does not solve the problem on any permanent 80709-249J
Post Office Act
basis. It seems to me that the only solution to this problem is for the Post Office Department itself to take over this work of collecting the mail from the street letter boxes and the various delivery services that have to be made in bulk, by trucks and vehicles of one sort and another. Taking that work over would involve making these mail couriers employees of the Post Office Department. I feel that should be done so that these men can get proper wages for the work they are doing, and so that they can get sick leave, statutory holidays with pay, pension privileges, and the other rights and benefits that go with the doing of government work. After all, that is what -they are doing. They are working for the government or for the people of this country. I think they should have that status rather than the status of being employees of private contractors.
I have taken this matter up with the Postmaster General a number of times by letter, as is obvious from the thickness of the file I am turning over as I speak. On one or two occasions the Postmaster General has indicated to me by letter that consideration was being given to the request that this work be taken over by the Post Office Department, and that these men be made employees of the Post Office Department. I should be glad to hear from him now what the result of that consideration is. I hope that it is favourable. I hope that action may be taken soon. If there is to be any delay, I certainly hope he will find some way to improve the wages and the working conditions of these men. I am satisfied, however, that in the long run the only satisfactory solution is for these men to come under the direct employ of the Post Office Department.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I suppose the inference to be drawn from the remarks made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is that, after all, our employees are not so badly treated, having regard to the fact that he wants these other people that he talked about to become employees of the postal department. I thank him for that nice gesture. I have taken the matter up. I have discussed it with my officials. I might tell the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that all new contracts have in them an escalator clause as to the question of salaries only. With regard to this escalator clause for salaries or wages, we are governed by the prevailing wages that are established by the labour department. As soon as the labour department tells us that the prevailing rate in such a district is so much, we insist upon the contractors passing on to the drivers this addition that we make to our contracts. That clause is in the new contracts. We are now working to get these old contracts-of which

Post Office Act
Winnipeg I think is one-into line with all the others where the escalator will apply.


Stanley Howard Knowles: 1 am glad to know that the matter is toeing given some consideration. I accept the comment that the Postmaster General made as to the inference from my remarks. It is certainly true that post office employees generally are dealt with much better than is this group of employees working under these particular private contractors. There is no question about it that they would be better off directly under the Post Office Department. But I am afraid that the suggestion that seems to be in process of being fulfilled will not solve the problem. This business of having escalator clauses and of referring to the Department of Labour to find out what the prevailing rate is always results in those affected by it lagging far behind. We know that from sad experience.
I am afraid I had better take a minute or two to give some of these figures just to show what is going on. At the present time these men are getting 83 cents an hour, which for a forty-eight hour week works out at less than $40, or around $170 a month. Thomas Jackson Fuel Company pays a starting rate of 85 cents an hour, and that moves up to 90 cents an hour. McCurdy Fuel and Building Supplies pays its truck drivers $1.05 an hour, gives them two weeks holidays with pay and time and a half and double time after certain periods of time for overtime. The rates for those working for the Winnipeg packing plants start at 95 cents an hour and go up after six weeks to $1.11 an hour; average earnings are $52 a week. All of these figures were in effect last July; in some cases they may now be even better. The Coca- Cola Company pays a minimum rate of $55 a week and a maximum rate of $70 a week. The Canadian Pacific Express Company was paying its truck drivers last July a minimum rate of $198.57 a month and a maximum rate of $213.57 a month. The city of Winnipeg pays at one rate only, which is $195 a month. These city employees, employed as truck drivers, get one week's holidays with pay after the first year, two weeks holidays with pay after the second year, and later on that goes up to three weeks holidays with pay, and there are sick leave and other benefits that go with that service. In addition I would point out that civic employees doing comparable work driving trucks get time and a half for overtime and double time if that overtime goes beyond a certain point.
Against that these mail couriers are getting one rate only, 83 cents an hour. They get only one week's holiday with pay, and the only other concession is that there is a little

bit of group insurance, no pension rights or privileges, no sick leave. They do not even get their uniforms; they have to buy them and pay for them themselves. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the minister's reply to the effect that consideration is being given to introducing an escalator clause to all these contracts dealing only with the wage rates does not deal with the problem. I wish he would take what he treated as a compliment to his department a little more seriously than he has thus far, and that he would go the whole way and put these employees directly under his department.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: That would mean taking over
13.420	contracts.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just a minute; there are 35 of these employees in the city of Winnipeg. I am talking about the couriers who pick up letters from street letter boxes. Does the minister mean to tell me that there are that many contracts for that type of work?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: There is no difference between the courier who picks up the letters from the boxes and the other couriers who pick them up and take them from the station to the post office or from the post office to the rural districts. It would mean 13,420 contracts.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All right; I would like to be shown that there are that many contracts; but if employees of 13,000 contractors are suffering conditions such as these, then it is high time that the Postmaster General did take them over.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I did not say they were all like these. What I did say was that there were
13.420	contracts altogether.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the Postmaster General think that it is fair to leave these men working at these rates and under these conditions?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I have answered that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is there no answer?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I have already answered it; I do not need to answer it a second time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have asked the Postmaster General whether he thinks it is fair to leave these men under this wage rate and under these conditions.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I have already answered the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and told him what I have done to correct the situation. He has made another suggestion. I will study it as I study every one of the suggestions that come from any hon. members.


Mrs. Fairclough:: About three weeks ago I directed a question to the Postmaster

General with reference to payment for overtime work in the transition period on the inauguration of the new mail deliveries, and was subsequently answered, I think a week later, to the effect that payment for overtime would toe made in cash. Since that time I have been talking to some of the carriers. Perhaps the minister will be good enough to tell me whether the information that I have is correct. I am now told that nothing will be paid until all of these walks have been checked, and that when they have been checked, if it is found that the man has worked six hours overtime a week during the checking period he will then be paid overtime for the period back to the inauguration of the new walk. Is that correct?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: That is correct.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: What provision is there for the men, some of whose difficulties may be ironed out, and who probably would not show a great volume of overtime at the present time, but who have in the past, in the process of getting the new walk into some kind of efficient working order, put in a great deal of overtime? Are they to get nothing for the time they have put on this work?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: As I said this morning in answer I think to a question put to me by the hon. member for Battle River, any walk that can be checked will be paid overtime. But unfortunately, if we are not in a position to check it, there is nothing much we can do about it.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Of course this matter was talked about at great length at the time the changes were made in the deliveries, and these men were working for a couple of months under these conditions, carrying particularly heavy loads and working several hours overtime a day. There are a number of them who have a record in the city of Hamilton, for instance. A record was kept of these hours, and without putting a man actually on with every man every day to check I do not know what figures the department will take to arrive at the amount of overtime that was actually worked, because as conditions changed some of these men left the routes. Some of them have gone on to other jobs, and some of them have had adjustments made so that they are no longer operating under the conditions under which they were operating in March, April and May. There have been a great many hours worked. I quoted some figures in the house at the time I spoke to the minister in the house. I have them here, but I will not
Post Office Act
repeat them at this time. Can some consideration not be given to these men who, everyone will agree, worked many hours overtime in order to inaugurate this new system?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Again I wish to thank the hon. member for the inference that the situation is much better today than it was some weeks ago, because if these couriers are working less time today than they were, then the situation has been corrected to that extent. As to the other feature of the presentation of the hon. member, I am afraid there is nothing much I can do unless an efficient check is made of the routes.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: It seems to me the
minister is very quick to put an optimistic slant on any statement made with reference to his department. I would not say the situation is corrected at all. I have a list here showing the overtime worked in the month of April, and for one week of the month of May. At that time, of course, the new routes were in operation, and some of the difficulties had been ironed out; but they are not cured by any means.
I do not think that because a man on a route has been .efficient is any reason for saying that he has not suffered, or that he has not contributed to the efficient operation of a route at considerable cost to himself in both time and effort. I do not think it is proper for the Postmaster General to claim credit for his department for correcting a situation which has been corrected largely as a result of a man's own efforts.
Then, with reference to deliveries, I would say that on previous occasions I asked about the classification of walks as residential walks. Since that time many more complaints have come to me; I would mention one in particular which refers to Main street, Hamilton, within two blocks of the post office proper, which has been classified as a residential walk.
From memory I have made a list of some of the businesses operating in that area. There is the office of a large canning industry, there are several lawyers, a restaurant, a real estate office, a stockbroker, a coal merchant, a large trust company, the main branch of a large bank, the Bell Telephone Company, a hotel and a manufacturing jeweler. Those are only a few of them. Yet that walk is classified as a residential walk, and they have only one mail delivery a day.
Moreover, those who wish to pick up mail at the post office so that they may carry on business more or less in a normal way find that no boxes are available, and that they are unable to do so. It seems to me there should be some way of rectifying a situation

Post Office Act
like that. If the mail delivery service is to be cut, then certainly there should be facilities at the post office whereby these people would be able to pick up their own mail and not have to wait until the afternoon,_ so that banking hours would be over before they received the mail coming to them.
Then there is one other matter I should like to ask about, and that has reference to mail going out from the House of Commons to various parts of the country, and the manner in which it is handled. On Friday, May 25, I wrote a letter here in Ottawa and posted it here in the House of Commons before five o'clock in the afternoon of that day. It was received on the following Tuesday, May 29, in Hamilton. I inquired about this delivery and was told that mail going from the House of Commons and different government departments is handled as second-class mail, and that this accounts for the delay.
If this is not so, then I suggest a check should be made, because apparently that is what has happened; a letter which I posted at five o'clock on Friday was received in Hamilton on the following Tuesday.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I shall most certainly check the latter part of the hon. member's statement. There is absolutely no foundation for the information she was given, namely that it was dealt with as second-class mail. All first-class mail is handled in the same way throughout Canada.
Then, as to residential routes, I have already explained to the committee that they can include as much as twenty-five per cent of commercial or industrial establishments. I have already said to hon. members that a complete re-survey is being made of all commercial and industrial establishments with a view to reorganizing the routes so that if, out of four or five different routes, we can establish a commercial route, we shall do so. But the services of the Post Office Department have to go on. We just cannot stop the machine, make the repairs and then go on after the machine has been repaired. We must make the repairs while the machine operates-and of course that takes a little more time than if it were stopped.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Would a hotel be classified as a residence? Would the Y.M.C.A. or the Y.W.C.A. be classified as residences?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: The hon. member is quite
right when she says that about fifteen of the places she named are not residences. But we have to establish a certain standard, and we say that a residential route is one that may include up to twenty-five per cent of commercial or industrial establishments.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I can understand what
the postmaster is driving at, and I would have no quarrel if this were taking place in an outlying area; but when it is right in the very heart of the business district it is entirely different. If the route is being classified as a residential route because of that portion of it lying in a residential part, and removed from the centre of the city, then I urge that the part in the centre of the city should be placed on another route.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: That is exactly what we plan doing.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: It is a great injustice to these people.


Mr. Gillis:: I was glad to hear the Postmaster General say this morning that he realized there had been a good deal of difficulty and confusion in the swing-over in the postal department. I have already expressed my views about most of those things with which I disagree.
The minister said this morning the department was prepared to examine all complaints and to correct any situation where there may be a hardship.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: If possible.


Clarence Gillis: Yes, if possible. I believe the minister will recall that he has been receiving a substantial amount of correspondence from the city of Sydney in regard to the business section of that city with a population of from 8,000 to 10,000, and which is three miles away from the main post office. Perhaps the deputy minister will be more familiar with the correspondence. Delivery has been cut to one a day. The city clerk of Sydney has written to me, and I have written to the minister and the deputy minister. To date, the city council are not satisfied with the attitude taken by the department. A letter to me dated May 18 from the clerk of Sydney encloses a copy of a letter written to him by the minister. They say the minister has not faced up to the problem, and they urge that two deliveries a day are necessary in that section. It would mean the addition of only one mail carrier, and this would not entail a very heavy expense. A large area in the city is affected.
I believe the city council of Sydney is making a reasonable request when they ask the minister to relieve the condition by adding another mail carrier to the walk for the purpose of making the additional delivery. I do not know whether the minister has re-examined the problem since he last wrote to the city clerk but, if he has, I would ask him to make a statement. If not,

will he look into the matter again and see if something cannot be done to remedy the situation?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: To be perfectly frank, this
is one matter I would have expected to discuss when my estimates are before the committee. I am not ready to give an answer at this time.


Clarence Gillis: Well, I thought I would bring
it to the minister's attention so that he could give some thought to it. I hope the minister will do some more thinking about it, because he will hear more about it.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Mr. Chairman, there is a
veterans housing project in St. John's known as Tunis Court to which there is no mail delivery. Representations have been made to the head postmaster in St. John's but without success. I forwarded a petition signed by these people to the minister on May 4 and he promised he would get in touch with the head postmaster at St. John's. Nothing has been done and the residents are getting anxious.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: This is another matter that
should be taken up when the estimates are being considered.


Robert Fair: When we were discussing rural
mail routes earlier in the day the minister said he would give me the number of routes that have been suspended temporarily. I wonder if I could have that information broken down into the different provinces. Another matter I have been asked about is the cost of installing lock boxes in post office lobbies. Some people feel that the rates being charged are too high in comparison with the cost of installing them, particularly when other people are being served by mail routes without charge.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: When I stated this morning
that I would obtain information for the hon. member for Battle River I meant that I would have that when the estimates were before the committee. The information in the form in which he wants it is being collected. I have nothing before me with regard to the cost of lock boxes, but I shall have that information on my estimates.


Mr. Johnston:: Before we drop this matter
of post office boxes may I again direct attention to a matter which I have brought up on other occasions, although not while the present minister was head of the department. In most post offices where lock boxes are installed the outside doors of the post office are locked at six o'clock which creates a hardship for many people who have boxes, particularly those who are in business and
Post Office Act
who cannot get away until after six o'clock. Then again mail may come in by train late in the afternoon or toward the evening, be taken to the post office, distributed to the boxes, but again the outside doors are locked.
Where lock boxes are installed I cannot see any necessity to keep the outside doors locked. The boxes are all locked and the safety of the mail would not be jeopardized if the outside doors were to remain unlocked. When people are paying for their boxes they should have access to them. I join with the hon. member for Battle River in suggesting that the present rates for these boxes are higher than might be charged.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Wherever it is possible we
have what we call a night lobby with direct access from the street. We have these night lobbies in new post offices, but the hon. member will realize that that would not be possible in all post offices.


Percy Ellis Wright: Section 5 (1) (1) reads:
(1) establish and maintain a fund derived from moneys received from postal employees and pay out of the fund losses sustained by reason of the default or neglect of any postal employee or mail contractor in carrying out his duties in any matter relating to the Canada post office;
Could the minister give the present standing of that fund, how much was collected and how much was paid out last year, and what are the rates of deduction?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: We have not collected anything from employees for several years. It was intended that the fund should grow and it has grown to a sufficient extent that we do not need to collect any more.


Percy Ellis Wright: What is the amount of the
fund?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I will get it for the hon.
member.


Mr. Catherwood:: I was pleased to hear
the minister say to the ho-n. member for Melfort that post offices might be opened in rural areas where the routes were being discontinued. There is a feeling throughout rural Canada that some of the post offices are to be closed and I hope the minister will give serious consideration before the closing of any such post offices. Most of these post offices are located in general stores and form an important part of the community life.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: This again is a matter for my estimates and if possible I should like to keep to the bill. When the estimates are up we will have all the information. In the meantime, I would say to the hon. member for Melfort that the fund stands at present at $300,000.

Post Office Act


Percy Ellis Wright: How much was paid out last year?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Could that wait until the
estimates? I stated this morning that we were closing post offices when it was felt that the rural routes were providing sufficient service. In some cases the number remaining to be served by the post office might be only two, three or four persons. I do not think we could defend keeping a post office open with all the expense necessary to pay the salary of the postmaster, to pay the courier to bring mail from the station to the post office and so on, to serve two, three or four people. I think it is a good policy to close such post offices. As I said this morning, when a mail route is discontinued we will consider the reopening of the post office.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Paragraph (s) reads:
Pay out of postal revenue losses resulting from fire, theft or forgery.
Then subsection 2 is headed "no liability." Those appear to be contradictory. Paragraph (s) is new, and I should like to have the minister explain it.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Losses from fire, theft or
forgery may not result from malfeasance or misfeasance on the part of postal employees, and in that case the amount to be payable as compensation could not be properly drawn from the guarantee fund and it is therefore essential that such payments be made from revenue.


Agar Rodney Adamson: That is, if a postal note is forged and improperly paid, the department pays the owner of the note from the general funds of the country and not from the reserve funds of the department?


Mr.   P.infrei@: Yes, if there is no misfeasance.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I have two or three questions, and I do not know whether the minister wants to answer them now or on his estimates. In his report I noticed that last year there were about 44,000 full and parttime employees of the department. Can the minister tell me how many of those were employed through the civil service commission and how many were appointed outside the commission?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I believe that would be a proper question for the estimates.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Would the minister put on record the regulations relative to the hours during which post offices may have their general delivery and other wickets open to serve the public? I find great variations in this regard. For example, in one town the office will be open at a certain hour, and in another town it will be open at a different

hour. In one town the general delivery and other wickets will be closed at noon for an hour and a half or two hours, while in another they will be closed for one hour. In one town they are closed Wednesday afternoons; in another they are closed Thursday afternoons. There must be regulations in connection with this, and I would appreciate it if they could be put on the record.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: There seems to be a general impression that service in thinly settled areas and the frequency of the opening of wickets are matters governed solely by the department. Actually attention must be paid to the hours when trains come in, and how frequently the trains run. We have to follow the movement of the trains, and for that reason we cannot draw up any such schedule as the hon. member requested.
(Translation):


Mr. Gagnon:: I would like to know what
is required of those places which would like to have a post office built. Is that decision left to the Postmaster General (Mr. Rinfret) or to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier)? What are the department's requirements?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: No such recommendation is
ever made by the Post Office Department unless a post office has a revenue of over $10,000. Beyond that, a priority is established according to the needs of the locality. Then, after discussion between the Post Office Department and the Department of Public Works, the construction of a building is decided upon.
(Text):


Joseph William Noseworthy: Is not the question I asked the Postmaster General in order under subsection 1 (b).


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: The number of employees as at March 31, 1951, was 46,402, made up as
follows:
Headquarters	 985
Staff offices	 15,436
Part time	 634
District offices	   565
Railway mail clerks	 1,318
Mail contractors	 13,440
Revenue postmasters, including semi,
sub and seasonal offices	 12,038
Full time assistants	 1,355
Part time assistants	 631


Joseph William Noseworthy: Now can the minister tell us how many of those were appointed through the civil service commission and how many outside the commission?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: The contractors, of course, are not appointed by the civil service commission. Of the revenue postmasters, as I have said before, those in offices where the revenue is more than $3,000 are appointed by the civil service commission and the others are

appointed by the Postmaster General. The proportion of the post offices with less than $3,000 is about 89 per cent, if I remember correctly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the Postmaster General give the exact figure of the number appointed under the provisions of section 5 (1) (b); how many of that 46,000?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: That is exactly what I said. The post offices having revenue of less than $3,000-


Stanley Howard Knowles: But what is the number?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: They represent 89 per cent, and the calculation is easy enough to make. I have not made it, but about 1,200 would be appointed by the commission and about 11,800 by the Postmaster General.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does that have reference to contractors only?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: No, that is the answer to your question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Those appointed under
5 (1) (b)?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Yes.


Frederick Davis Shaw: In reply to my previous question the Postmaster General indicated something we all appreciate; that we must have some regard to when the trains arrive. But is there not some regulation to the effect that post office wickets may be closed for a reasonable period while the mail is sorted? Surely you are not going to permit wickets to be closed for perhaps three hours while mail is sorted which would normally require an hour. There must be some general rule governing that.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: The rule is usually half an hour to an hour, depending upon the amount of mail arriving on the train, not three hours.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Then I understand there are in Canada some post offices where the revenue is more than $3,000 and the postmasters are on a commission basis.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: That is not right.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Then let me approach it in this way. I understand this was the case until recently. I knew there was a move away from that, and I was going to ask how many postmasters in Canada are still working on a commission basis. I assume the answer will be that the change-over has been completed.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: There are no such post offices. There may be some sub-post offices in cities.


Mr. Tuslin:: I would like to ask a question in regard to the closing of the lobbies of the post offices. For instance, usually the wickets
Post Office Act
close at six or six thirty, and a certain time is allowed after that during which the box holders can get in to get their mail. Is there any set time when the lobby doors must be locked, or is that up to the postmaster?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: That ties in pretty well with what I have already told1 the hon. member for Red Deer. There is no set time for that. It depends, as I just said, on the arrival of the trains. We have to be guided by that.


George James Tustin: I do not mean the wicket where they apply for their mail.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: The night lobbies will be open only after the post office proper is closed, and the closing of the post office depends upon the arrival of the trains.


George James Tustin: I do not think the Postmaster General understands me. Let me take my own post office in Napanee. Our trains come in around noon, at one o'clock and one thirty, and again at midnight. I am trying to find out if there is any set time when the lobby doors must be locked; that is the doors of the building. There are no trains coming in, and I believe the doors are locked at seven or seven thirty.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Under those circumstances the normal closing time would be six o'clock.


George James Tustin: That would be for the lobby and all?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Yes.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I do not fully understand
paragraph (i), subsection 1 of section 5 which gives the postmaster authority to set up stamp vending machines. What is the difference in the commission paid to the people who run stamp vending machines as compared to meter machines? Some of these stamp vending machines must be making quite a profit, because you have to pay five cents for a four-cent stamp; for three 3-cent stamps, you have to pay ten cents. Theft is no change coming back from these machines. I understand they are established in hotels or wherever they can get a vending machine going.
This leads me back to the fact that you must be paying some commission, or is the machine just paying for its own operation? Paragraph (k) gives the Postmaster General authority to require any person to give security for the due performance of duties performed relative to the Canada Post" Office. Now, I believe that puts my stamp vendor at Charlottetown in the category of a postal employee, at least with regard to his security. I should like some information on that as well.

Post Office Act


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: As to the first question,
vending machines are established for the convenience of the patrons. They do not get any commission. If my hon. friend has seen one of these machines, he knows that they will give two 2-cent stamps for five cents. They make their commission out of the sale to the public. If the public does not want the convenience of getting two 2-cent stamps for five cents, that is their business, not ours.
On the second question, this paragraph only gives the Postmaster General the authority to ask for security.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Who owns these machines?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: The persons operating them, who buy the stamps from us. As to paragraph (k), that only gives the Postmaster General the authority to do that.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I appreciate the answer the Postmaster General gave, and that his answer applied to paragraph (b) of section 5. I should like him to take note now that on the estimates I should like to know how many of those 46,000 employees are permanent.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Paragraph (n) of section 5 gives the Postmaster General authority to establish and alter the limits of postal areas. This gives considerable trouble to any member of parliament who represents a rural constituency, because when the postal department changes an established area we have a great deal of trouble. I should like the Postmaster General to say how he gets the information to establish and alter the limits of certain postal areas that have been in operation for years?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: This paragraph (n) has to be read in connection with section 10. Section 10 says:
The rates of postage on letters posted in Canada for delivery in Canada are:
(a) On each letter for delivery within the postal area in which it is posted, . . .
TTie Postmaster General must have some authority to define an area, and this gives him that authority.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6-Regulations.
Stanley Howard Knowles: In connection with section 6, there is a comment I should like to make. Most statutes that come before us contain sections providing that the regulations to be made under such and such act are to be made by the governor in council. I do not find any such section in this act. When we read this section, it seems that the Postmaster General by himself may make the regulations spelled out in the various subsections. Has it always been the practice for regulations of

this kind to be made solely by the Postmaster General? Does the Postmaster General feel it should be this way or would it not be for his own protection if it were necessary for them to be made by the governor in council?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: All these are subject, of course, to the Regulations Act, and have to be published in the regular way. If the hon. member will look >at the other side of the page, he will see that all these paragraphs with the exception of (s) are contained in the old act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: These have always been regulations made exclusively by the Postmaster General, then, without reference to his cabinet colleagues?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: That is correct, except (s), of course, which is new.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Paragraph Cd) of section 6 refers to the establishment of rates of postage. Will the Postmaster General bring in his amendment under this paragraph or will he wait until section 11?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Paragraph (d) says: establishing rates of postage on any class of mailable matter for which a rate is not established by this act;
Section 11 does establish a rate, and therefore this paragraph excludes section 11.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-Unlawful use of mails.
Mr. Blair:: Will the Postmaster General explain just what types of tickets for raffles and so on are prohibited? Where is the line drawn? I received a few tickets through the mail from one organization, and printed on the tickets were the words "Cleared for the purpose of complying with the law". Some really responsible people have been denied the use of the mails. Where is the line drawn?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: The Criminal Code, I am afraid.


William Gourlay Blair: Would the minister mind
explaining the sections of the Criminal Code covering lottery tickets?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: There are a number of sections in the Criminal Code covering these various matters.


William Gourlay Blair: There are communities that are building community halls or war memorials, and some very responsible people have been denied the use of the mail by a ruling of the Postmaster General.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I am afraid it will have to continue to be like that. Tickets for all drawings that go through the mail, whether

they call them lotteries, bingos or anything else, for prizes worth more than $50, come within the classification of a lottery. They are denied the use of the mails. I understand that by doing so we are hitting quite a number of charitable institutions that we should be helping. But on the other hand, if we allow one of these charitable institutions to go through the mails, we will be flooded by a hundred rackets that should not go through the mails.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Subsection 2 of section 7 provides for the setting up of a board of review nominated by the Postmaster General. Has the Postmaster General received any representations from public bodies asking that that board of review should be independent instead of being nominated by the Postmaster General?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I received some representation to that effect from the board of trade of the city of Toronto, yes.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Has the minister given any consideration to that request?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I have given it consideration and I have discussed it with the officials of the department. Any independent board that might be nominated under the suggestion of the Toronto board of trade would, I suppose, be one board like the railway board or the air transport board or ones like that, which would again be a governmental body. It is felt that the authority should be left in the discretion of the Postmaster General.
Last year when this matter was broached, the request that was made of the department was not so much to have an independent board as to give the persons whose mail had been stopped an opportunity of explaining to somebody in the department the reasons why it should not be stopped. Last year I promised that this would be done. By introducing section 7 we are just giving effect to the promise that was made last year.


Joseph William Noseworthy: For his own protection and in order to avoid criticism, would the minister not be well advised to make that an independent board? To me there does not seem to be any difference between appealing to the Postmaster General and appealing to a board appointed by the Postmaster General. To me that seems to be one and the same thing. I would strongly urge that consideration be given to the suggestion to which I have referred.
Then there was another request to the effect that there should be the normal right of appeal to the courts from ministerial action
Post Office Act
based upon the findings of a board of review. Has the minister given consideration to that question?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: That is so. The brief of the board of trade of the city of Toronto also mentions the question of an appeal; but it was not felt that the discretion should be taken away from the Postmaster General. I realize that it is quite a heavy responsibility, but I think it is one that a minister of the crown should be ready to accept.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section	8-Exclusive privilege of
Postmaster General.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to say a word or two about the wording of section 8 (1). I understand as well as anyone else what this wording is intended to mean. I realize that we are following a practice that has come down as a bit of tradition. But it seems to me that we might make the wording in a section like this a little bit more appropriate to the situation. Just notice, Mr. Chairman, what it says:
Except as provided in subsection two, the Postmaster General has the sole and exclusive privilege of collecting, conveying and delivering letters within Canada.
The Postmaster General is a fairly capable fellow, but he is not as ubiquitous as that. I do not think we should have on our statute books a statute which seems to say that, as to every letter that is picked up anywhere in Canada, or any letter that is delivered, it is done by the Postmaster General.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Not himself.


Mr. Lesage:: If the hon. member had been
at law school, he would know different.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The parliamentary assistant to the Secretary of State for External Affairs refers to law school. That is exactly my point. Professional lawyers do not stop to look at the meaning of the language they have been using-


Jean Lesage: It is because we do look at
it; that is why.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They do not look at the meaning of the language they have been using across the years. We all know that what is meant by this section is the Post Office Department or the Canada Post Office. In fact, back in section 2 (1) (a) we have defined Canada Post Office in these words:
"Canada Post Office" means the activities conducted under the direction and control of the Postmaster General.
Then a little later on we had section 3 which provided for the organization of a department to be known as the Post Office

Post Office Act
Department over which the Postmaster General is to preside. But it seems to me that we should be realistic and factual in our wording, and that in a section like this, instead of saying that the Postmaster General collects, conveys and delivers all letters within Canada, we should say either the Post Office Department or the Canada Post Office. I like that phrase that has come into this act; I refer to the "Canada Post Office". I think it would be preferable if in this section the wording had been:
Except as provided in subsection two. the Canada Post Office has the sole and exclusive privilege of collecting, conveying and delivering letters within Canada.
It is not a matter that is of sufficient importance for me to bother to move an amendment. But I suggest the idea seriously, not just in fun. I think the wording in our statutes should conform to the facts of the situation.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: The same wording has been
in the act since 1867.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is exactly the point
and that is exactly the trouble. Certainly it has been there since 1867. I realize that. In the notes to the right it says that this section has been section 35, and that means no change has been made. That was good Victorian legal language back in 1867, but we do not mean that today. We do not mean that our good friend Edouard Rinfret is going to run around, collect all the letters and deliver them himself. Then why say that? We mean the department over which he presides. I think a change should be made. In fact, to bring the matter to a head, I will, despite what I said a moment ago, offer an amendment. I move:
That section 8(1) be amended by deleting therefrom the words "Postmaster General" and by substituting therefor the words "Canada Post Office."


Jean Lesage: Mr. Chairman, may I read
the section with the amendment. It would read as follows:
Except as provided in subsection two, the activities conducted under the direction and control of the Postmaster General-


Stanley Howard Knowles: No; you had better go back to law school.


Jean Lesage: It would continue:
-have the sole and exclusive privilege of collecting conveying and delivering letters within Canada.
It makes sense, does it not?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suggest that the hon.
member for Montmagny-L'Islet had better go back to law school. I moved as an amendment that the words "Postmaster General" be deleted and that the words
"Canada Post Office" be put in their place. That would make section 8 (1) read-and I read it before, if the hon. member had been listening-as follows:
Except as provided in subsection two, the Canada Post Office has the sole and exclusive privilege of collecting, conveying and delivering letters within Canada.


Jean Lesage: Yes, but-


Stanley Howard Knowles: If anyone wants to know
what "Canada Post Office" means,-


Jean Lesage: Read it now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -he does what one does with every other act. He looks back to what is usually section 2, the definition section.


Jean Lesage: That is what I did. Read it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Looking back to section 2,
to find out what that phrase means-


Jean Lesage: That is exactly what I did.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -one finds it is defined as follows:
"Canada Post Office" means the activities conducted under the direction and control of the Postmaster General.


Jean Lesage: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words, it means
the Post Office Department; it means employees of the Post Office Department.


Mr. Ferrie:: Do not waste the time of
the committee.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: It means activities. We
cannot very well accept that amendment in the other section. It is not the activities that have the privilege. It is the Postmaster General.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the Postmaster General wants to leave the law reading that he personally is the one who is to run around and pick up the letters and do all the delivering I have no option but to leave it to him, but surely it is a ridiculous way to word the section.


Mr. Graydon:: Had you not better bring in a judge?


The Deputy Chairman:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has not sent the amendment up to me, but I understand he is doing so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.


Louis-René Beaudoin: As I understand the amendment, it replaces the words "Postmaster General" with the words "Canada Post Office".
Those in favour of the amendment, please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Those against it please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Louis-René Beaudoin: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the amendment lost.
Amendment negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to..
Section 9 agreed to.
On section 10-Rates on letters.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Paragraph (a) deals with rates of postage. There is an increase of 50 per cent, an increase from 2 to 3 cents. Let us hope that this service will get back on a revenue producing basis because of these increases, and that we may get back to the position we were in during the years 1946 and 1947 when the Post Office Department had a surplus of $10 million, $11 million and $12 million annually. When one looks back at the report of 1946 one sees a surplus of $11 million. Where has it all vanished? Now we have to raise the postage rates.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I am sorry to disagree with the hon. member, but there is not one cent of an increase in section 10. It is exactly the same as it was before, except that under the preceding law one part of the postage was charged under the authority of the postal law and the other part was under the Excise Tax Act. Under section 78 of the bill part IX of the Excise Tax Act is repealed but what was in the Excise Tax Act is incorporated in the postal act. There is no change in practice. It is exactly the same rate.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: There is a change in the
postage rate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has there been any separate bookkeeping with respect to the excise tax and the rates of postage that have been charged since that came into effect?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Not for many years, anyhow. I do not know whether at the beginning there was any segregation, but for the past several years it has been all kept as revenue of the post office.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The reason I ask that is that I remember when Mr. Ilsley first brought in that tax during the war he specified that it was a tax for general revenue purposes and not an increase in the postage rate. What has happened now is that what originally was a tax for war revenue has been built into the postage rates on a permanent basis.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Post Office Act
On section lh-Newspapers and periodicals.
Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: There has been quite a lot of discussion on this subject. One matter that has been brought up is whether or not the amount of $12 million which was paid last year in services was or was not a subsidy. I beg leave to disagree with the leader of the opposition, and I am very fortunate in having Webster on my side. The New International dictionary says a subsidy is:
A grant of funds or property from a government, as of the state or municipal corporation, to a private person or company to assist in the establishment or support of an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public; a subvention. In practice subsidies are chiefly granted in aid of transportation enterprises, as to ship, canal, air transport, or railway companies, bounties on sugar being next in importance. A subsidy may be a simple gift or may consist in the payment of an amount in excess of the usual charges for any service, as in carrying the mails, or of funds to aid in establishing or maintaining a service or equipment larger or more powerful than the state of trade would warrant, as the building and keeping in service of vessels designed for use as cruisers and auxiliaries in war.
According to Webster the excess of what the Post Office Department has to pay for transportation on newspapers over what we actually receive would therefore be a subsidy. Therefore last year we gave a subsidy of $12 million to newspapers and magazines. Newspapers will claim that it was not paid to them directly. That may be true. They may have been paid for the purpose of the rural readers. That also may be true. It also remains true, Mr. Chairman, that never has any government given for the purpose an amount as large as the one that we did give last year, to wit, $12 million, and the rural readers have benefited to that extent. The year before the subsidy was $11 million; the year before that the subsidy was $11 million. It has kept on increasing all the time. It is felt that at some time or other, with the mounting costs that we have to bear in the department, something has to be done to bring the matter a little more in line with the situation. With the estimate that we have at the present time, the present year in which we are now engaged, unless there is some change, will bring us a deficit of some $14 million or $15 million on the second-class category alone.
I have already said that if we did not have a deficit we could reduce the postage throughout the four-cent rate area so as to bring it into conformity with other areas in Canada so that we could have a uniform rate of 3 cents throughout the country. But the surplus that we have on the first-class mail we have to apply to certain deficits that we have on certain other classes. I have already spoken of the $12 million deficit on the second-class mail. I have also referred, prior

Post Office Act
to this debate, to the deficit of $2,250,000 that we have on third-class matter. The rate there has been adjusted. I have also referred to a deficit of $1,800,000 that we had on registration. That rate has been adjusted upwards. In all the various compartments where we had deficits we have tried to bring them in line with expenditures. In this instance, Mr. Chairman, we have a deficit of $12 million, and we are seeking from the newspapers only one-sixth of the amount, to wit, $2 million.
Some representations have been made to the effect that we have discriminated against certain classes of second-class matter. I should like to point out that last year the Post Office Department carried 158,004,560 pounds of mail. Out of this total, 66,355,674 were carried for dailies over 10,000 circulation and 3,480,407 for dailies under 10,000. A weight of 70 million pounds was carried for dailies, as against all the rest of the second-class matter.
Therefore the situation is that if we are to ask the people of Canada to pay two million dollars more in postal rates we have to divide the field in two, having on one side all the dailies, and on the other the weeklies, the monthlies, the quarterlies and all the others. That is the division made in the weight. After all, weight is what we have to reckon with. What we have to charge for is a service we give, and the service we give must be reckoned on the poundage we have to move.
Therefore in the department we have made a calculation of the various ways of making a separation between these two bodies. We figure that one million dollars should come out of dailies and one million dollars should come from the rest of the field. We have arranged our rates so that it would produce exactly that amount.


George Alexander Drew: I do not wish to interrupt the Postmaster General, but when he says that one million dollars is to come out of the dailies, and another million from the rest of the papers, does he mean by that that the computation he now makes provides that there will be one million dollars paid in respect of the carrying of the daily papers and one million dollars in respect of other types of material carried in this way?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: That is right. That would
be only the increase, of course. The accusation of discrimination has been mentioned in respect of the various rates charged. There again I would point out to the committee that, in assessing rates for various newspapers or periodicals,

we must take into consideration the strain being put on the post office by these various papers.
Dailies of over 10,000 circulation entail the highest cost of any class of publication. Many railway post offices could be discontinued if no dailies were in existence. The daily newspapers have to receive top priority at peak work-load periods.'


Gordon Graydon: There might be a lot of
institutions which would have to close if we did not have the daily papers.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: One thing I am sure of is that I would not have a $12 million deficit, and I could pass that on to the rest of the population of Canada. The dailies come to the post office when the big rush is on. We must give them a priority, because they do not want to be delayed, nor do we want to delay them. They have to be on the market as soon as possible. With the weeklies and monthlies, on the other hand, the question of reaching the market one or two hours later is not of such great importance. Therefore, instead of handling this business at a time of peak load, we can deal with the weeklies and monthlies one or two hours later, when the rush is over.
Another question which arises in connection with the big dailies, and one which involves another strain upon us, is the fact that they are put to mail in the post offices which are the most expensive for us to operate.
I have before me the various considerations as they affect the dailies, the tri-weeklies, the semi-weeklies and the weeklies, the monthlies, the fortnightlies and the quarterlies. It must be realized that a monthly magazine comes to us only once a month, whereas a daily comes twenty-five times a month. We have to deal with the papers as they come to the office.
However, I believe the real test lies in the weights I have indicated, which show that the dailies, by themselves, constitute half the total weight we have to carry. Information has been put on record indicating what these increased rates would mean to rural mail readers. I believe it was the leader of the opposition who read into Hansard a computation he had made to show increases for those readers. He pointed out for instance that a daily of 32 pages with more than 10,000 circulation would pay under the old rate $2.34 whereas as the result of the bill, at the 4-cent rate, it would have to pay $6.24, or an increase of $3.90 on that one paper.
I have here a letter addressed by one of the leading newspapers, one which would

fall into the category to which the leader of the opposition referred the other day. This letter states:
Dear Postmaster: (or Rural Mail Courier)
For the first time since 1938-
And the name of the newspaper is set out- -has made a price change in the cost of mail subscriptions. We do not call it a rate increase because we do not get the money. The new mail subscription rates for-
This newspaper.
-shown on the enclosed confidential rate card have been forced by the government's action in announcing a staggering increase in postal rates on newspapers.
Formerly the postage on a yearly subscription cost $2.34. Now it costs $6.24 a year.
This is exactly the same figure as was quoted the other day by the leader of the opposition.
Under the new postal rates announced May 21, the postage on a year's subscription has increased $3.90 since 1938: and only now is part of this increased cost being passed on to our readers.
I underline the word "now" because, according to this letter, this is to be put into operation on June 1, which is a date before the bill has passed parliament. I underline also the words, "part of the increased cost being passed on to our readers". It continues:
You will notice from the enclosed new rate card that in changing the yearly subscription price of-
This newspaper.
-to $10 per year we have taken this opportunity to increase your commission on yearly subscriptions to fifty cents each, and shorter terms, with the exception of one month, have been increased in proportion.
For a long time we have felt that your commission on mail subscriptions should be increased, but it was impossible to do it under the $7 rate.
The new mail subscription rates become effective June 1. In accepting new or renewal subscriptions on and after this date please be sure that every subscription is taken at the new rates given on the enclosed schedule. Enclosed also is a new rate card for public use. Will you please display it prominently in your post office.


Gordon Graydon: To whom is that addressed?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: It is addressed, "Dear Postmaster or rural mail courier."


Gordon Graydon: But not to the minister?
How is the minister reading it?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I just said that I received it with a blank piece of paper containing these words, "nothing like taking things for granted." Let us examine the situation of this newspaper. Last year it paid $119,000, partly under the one and a half cent rate and partly under the four cent rate for a more than fifty per cent advertising content. Therefore, the amount paid on each subscription was $3.91, although in the letter it is stated that the yearly subscription costs $2.34. They
Post Office Act
have 30,380 mail subscribers and last year they paid $119,000. Therefore the basis set out in this letter should not be $2.34 but rather $3.91, which indicates a difference of $1.57.	According to this letter dated
May 28


Gordon Graydon: Not addressed to the
minister?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: It could have been and it
would have received the same answer. I might say that the $2.34 mentioned in this letter would be the amount payable by a newspaper without any advertising content, but I do not know of any daily newspaper without an advertising content of 50 per cent or over. Let us examine what this particular newspaper will have to pay under the rates proposed in the bill. They would have to pay $59,203 more, based on the four cent proposed rate, which would represent an increase of approximately $1.94 and not $3.90 as has been suggested. The calculation is easy to make, $59,203 increase spread over 30,380 subscribers.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Are those figures for the
Globe and Mail?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: That is the name of the paper.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Has that paper only 30,000 subscribers?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Mail subscribers, yes.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: That proves definitely that
this bill is not aimed at the large metropolitan newspapers; it is aimed exclusively at the small ones.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I want you to know that
certain newspapers are taking advantage of this increased rate to pass on to their rural subscribers some of their other charges like those for newsprint and other commodities and then they blame it on the Postmaster General.
If the situation -were represented as it should be the increase to the Globe and Mail would not be $3.90; it would be $1.06 without taking into consideration the 50 per cent income tax they would have had to pay on the amount of the real increase. If the income tax were taken into consideration there would be an increase of only 53 cents. They have been asking their mail subscribers since June 1 to pay an amount which is much more than the net increase of 53 cents. What does the balance represent? It certainly does not represent an increase in postal rates.


Gordon Graydon: That might be just a paper you picked up off the street you are reading.

Post Office Act


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: With the paper that is picked up on the street for reading there is a difference. It has been represented that $15.25 is paid by city readers. I do not know the exact arrangements, but I understand that a certain amount is paid to the boy who delivers the paper or to the newsdealer who operates newsstands. I do not know what the arrangement is now, but when the paper sold at three cents it used to be one-third.
Coming back to this interesting discussion, under the amendment that I am going to ask one of my colleagues to move in a minute the Globe and Mail will have an increase in postage of $32,366. Deducting from that the fifty per cent income tax that they would have had to pay if they had it, you arrive at an amount of $16,183. They are asking their mail subscribers to pay over $91,140; they are passing that on as being the result of the postal rates.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has the Postmaster General comparable figures for the Toronto Star?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I have not made a similar calculation because the Toronto Star has not sent any such letter to its mail subscribers.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the Postmaster General know whether the Toronto Star is making a comparable increase in its subscription rate for mail subscribers?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: We have not been advised in any way, shape or form. I shall ask one of my colleagues to move this amendment. Under this amendment we keep the four cent rate on the advertising portion of the newspaper, whatever it may be, but in view of certain representations that have been made to the effect that the news portion was entitled to some reduction we have reduced the rate to two and a half cents on the portion of the newspaper which represents news. Therefore, the rate will be two and a half cents for the news portion and four cents for the advertising portion. In that way the newspapers will be treated fairly according to the amount of advertising they carry. If a newspaper has 10 per cent advertising it will be charged 4 cents on the 10 per cent and 24 cents on the 90 per cent. If on the other hand it has 60 or 65 per cent of advertising it will be charged 4 cents on the 60 or 65 per cent and 24 cents on the remainder. That is the amendment I propose to introduce to that part of section 11.


Alphonse Fournier: I move:
That subparagraph (1) of paragraph (a) of subclause (2) of clause 11 of Bill No. 322, an act respecting the Canada Post Office, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
11. (2) (a) (i) with a circulation of ten thousand or more copies per issue, two and one-half cents for each pound weight or fraction thereof in respect
[Mr. Graydon.)
of the portion that is not devoted to advertising and four cents for each pound weight or fraction thereof in respect of the portion consisting of advertising, and


Percy Ellis Wright: How much will this amendment reduce the revenue from this type of mail in comparison with the original proposal here?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Approximately $190,000.


Percy Ellis Wright: Will you still have enough revenue to cover the cost of this service?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Oh, no; not by a long way. The deficit is $12 million and this will produce approximately $1,800,000.


Percy Ellis Wright: In other words there will still be a subsidy of over $10 million?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Yes. At present for every 8 cents we spend we collect only 2 cents from the newspapers or other periodicals, taking them all generally, whereas with this amendment we will collect approximately 3J cents for each 8 cents we spend.


Percy Ellis Wright: I was asking that because some of these newspapers were quite alarmed at what they called a $65 million subsidy to western farmers over a five or six-year period, though at the same time they were being subsidized to the same extent.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I would not call $12 million equal to $65 million.


Percy Ellis Wright: But the $65 million was over a five-year period.


George Alexander Drew: Since the Postmaster General has been giving certain explanations, along with a speech on something which does not seem peculiarly related to the subject, I should think it might be well if we knew or had an indication of what the other amendments are going to be, in order to simplify the discussion.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Then this amendment will stand and we can have the next one.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: The other amendment is to subsection 4, "Rate where letter carrier service."


Alphonse Fournier: I move:
That subclause (4) of clause 11 of Bill No. 322, an act respecting the Canada Post Office, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
11. (4) All copies of newspapers and periodicals referred to in this section, other than those referred to in paragraph (f) of subsection 2, that are addressed for delivery within the postal area of publication where there is letter carrier delivery service are subject to postage at the rate of one cent for the first two ounces or fraction thereof and one cent for the next two ounces or fraction thereof and one cent for each additional four ounces or fraction thereof to each separate address.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask just one question for clarification? I take it that with respect to the second amendment these rates apply to each individual copy of the paper?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: That is correct.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Whereas with respect to the first amendment it is a case of weighing the whole works?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: That is right; and for purposes of clarification I might add that a double page of a newspaper weighs about one ounce. Therefore to make one pound a newspaper has to consist of 64 full pages. A 32 page newspaper is calculated at approximately one-half pound.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then one other question, still for clarification, with respect to the first of the two amendments.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order. I think if we are to have debate in an orderly way we should take the first amendment first.


George Alexander Drew: Is there any other amendment to section 11?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: No, that is all.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then with respect to the first amendment, the one now before us, when will the computing be done with respect to the space devoted to advertising and the space devoted to news? Will it be at regular intervals, or what is the plan?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: They are checked every day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So each issue is checked and the bill is made out specifically for that day?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I do not know whether the bill is sent out that particular day, but every issue is checked and the corresponding figure is established. I am told that most daily newspapers have credits at the post office, and the amount is charged to that credit every day.


Gordon Graydon: It is rather difficult to follow the ramifications of these amendments, so to clarify the situation I would like to ask a question. Does this amended section cover just daily newspapers, or does it cover magazines, weekly periodicals and all that sort of thing? If not, what do they pay, or is any change contemplated with respect to them?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: The amendment is in relation to section 11 (2) (a). The position of magazines, weeklies and so on is not altered except to the extent that they may be affected by the second amendment to subsection 4.


Gordon Graydon: What will a weekly or monthly magazine pay by way of postage after this act comes into effect?
Post Office Act


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: As I said before, the extent of the increase in toto will be $1 million. If a weekly has a circulation of more than 50,000 it will pay 3 cents for each pound; that is under paragraph (c). If the circulation is less than 50,000 and more than 10,000 it will pay 2i cents, and with a circulation of less than 10,000 per issue it will pay 1J cents for each pound or fraction thereof with the proviso that in cities of less than 10,000 the weeklies have free circulation of 2,500 copies. Does that answer my hon. friend?


Gordon Graydon: Partially.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Has the minister figures showing the effect of this change upon the weekly magazines published in Canada, such as Saturday Night and magazines of that type?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: There will be no change unless they are covered by the amendment to subsection 4, if they are delivered in letter carrier areas. Then instead of two cents for the first four ounces they will have to pay one cent for the first two ounces and one cent for the next two ounces. So far as weeklies, monthlies and all the others are concerned, the only difference it will make will be the amount of $1 million, roughly.


Percy Ellis Wright: I should like to know under what class of mail the mail order catalogues are carried?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Printed matter at two cents for the first two ounces, and one cent for each additional two ounces. It amounts to about nine cents a pound.


Percy Ellis Wright: I asked what class. Are they second class?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Third class.


Percy Ellis Wright: Earlier the minister stated that the deficit under third-class mail was $2,250,000. Are you proposing any increase in those rates to cover this deficit?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: No. I have already explained that under section 8, which has been adopted, the Postmaster General has the exclusive privilege of collecting and delivering letters within Canada. The rates for so doing have to be established by parliament. So far as second-class mail is concerned, such as newspapers, on account of the subsidy question it is better to have these rates established by parliament as it is a matter of policy. On third-class matter, such as circulars, catalogues, parcel post, registration and all the other fees, the rates are fixed by regulation by the Postmaster General.
As I explained before, for the year ending March 31, 1951, we had a deficit of $2,250,000

Post Office Act
on third class matter. We increased our rates on the first two ounces from one cent to two cents, effective on April 2. We are hoping that with this increase this deficit will be wiped out.


Mr. Gray  don:@: This afternoon the minister brandished, with considerable flourish, a letter which he said was not addressed to him. How he managed to get this letter out of the post office is a matter which I suppose will have to be left to conjecture. I was wondering how the Postmaster General could come into the house and read a letter which was addressed to someone else, not table it and not give any indication as to the source of the letter. He then based his argument upon part of that letter. I should like the Postmaster General to clarify that.


Alphonse Fournier: The same thing was done by one of your members today.


Gordon Graydon: If the Minister of Public Works is now going to take as his example for the future what we in the opposition do, we welcome that because we should like to give him some good examples to follow.


Alphonse Fournier: Very often the hon. member for Queens gives an example.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: First of all, this is not a regular letter, but a circular letter sent to all postmasters and rural mail couriers who happen to have on their routes or in their post offices subscribers to the Globe and Mail. One of them, I do not know who it was, sent it to me with this little note attached: "Nothing like taking things for granted".


Gordon Graydon: The minister is a lawyer
and he knows that that sort of thing would not for one moment be admitted as evidence in a court of law, yet a minister of the crown is attempting now to spread it over the columns of Hansard. I believe the minister ought to put himself in the same position as any other member. Does he take the responsibility for the accuracy of what he has read to the house?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I shall answer that question by asking the hon. member whether he denies that the letter was sent by the Globe and Mail.


Gordon Graydon: I do not happen to know,
and my problem is that I do not believe the minister knows. I was not using the letter but the minister was, and that puts us in very different categories, if I may say so.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: If the house wishes, I am
quite ready to table the letter, and also this card which says:
Change in mail subscription prices due to increased postage rates.

It then sets out the increase of $3 that the Globe and Mail has already requested. I am in the hands of the committee, and if the committee wishes me to table it then I shall.


Gordon Graydon: At best it is an anonymous
letter. The minister has told us it is an anonymous letter.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: No, I never said that.


Gordon Graydon: This enclosure came in it.
Those people who are not able to understand the difference between a letter and an enclosure will have to work that out for themselves. In any event, the minister says he does not know where it came from; he does not know who wrote it. The only thing is that someone sent him that enclosure, and on that basis he attempts to argue a case. In all fairness, I believe the minister has some motive in this beyond what he has indicated-


Lionel Chevrier: Order, order.


Gordon Graydon: -in bringing a thing of this kind before the house. I would think the minister, who understands so completely the various ramifications of the law, would not bring in an anonymous letter with an enclosure and then base a flowery speech upon that very weak foundation. May I suggest to the minister that he has stepped beyond the margin of fairness in taking the position he has with respect to that. I do believe the house is entitled to know the facts. The minister does not apparently know what the facts are.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Mr. Chairman, I have in my
hand now a letter with the heading "The Globe and Mail, Toronto 1, Canada: George McCullagh, president. To avoid delay please address to Globe and Mail and not its executive." This letter is signed by Ray Forrest, who is director of circulation of the Globe and Mail.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask to whom it is
addressed?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I have already answered that. It is addressed, "Dear Postmaster or Rural Mail Courier".


Gordon Graydon: It is not addressed to the
minister, and more than that it would be very easy for that circular letter to be composed by anyone.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Give up. They won't deny
it tomorrow.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, in the first
place the amendment is only an amendment to a general section with which we have not

started to deal. I would suggest that we must deal either with the section as a whole or with the subheadings of the section. I want to deal with the impression which, intentionally or otherwise, the minister seemed to convey by what he said. I was interested in his reference to the figures I had given, and then he introduced this discussion on some circular which he has produced and for which he assumes the responsibility.
I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that what I said in regard to this matter can be found at page 3511 of Hansard for May 29. In view of what the minister has said, I am going to read the part which referred to the figures to suggest that it was a surprising interest that the minister showed in one particular set of figures I had used. This is what I said:
A newspaper of over ten thousand circulation averaging 45 pages for each publishing day now pays $3 a year. Under the new rates it will be called upon to pay $7.64 a year.
A newspaper of ten thousand or more circulation with an average of 32 pages for every day of delivery now pays postage of $2.34 a year. The new rate will amount to $6.24. A newspaper of 28 pages in this group which now pays $1.80 postage will pay $4.90 under the new rates. A newspaper of 24 pages which now pays $1.56 in postage will pay $4.19. An 18-page newspaper which now pays $1.36 will pay $3.62. A 14-page newspaper in this group which now pays $1.14 will pay $3.05 if these provisions are adopted.
Then let us take newspapers with a circulation of less than ten thousand. A newspaper with an average of 12 pages and a circulation of less than ten thousand now paying 93 cents will pay $1.54. A newspaper with a 10-page average in this group, which now pays 87 cents, in future will pay $1.31.
I am extremely interested, Mr. Chairman, in the fact that the minister should have sought to convey the impression that the figures I had used had some relation to a particular newspaper. I would ask the minister if he disagrees with the accuracy of any of the figures I have now quoted; and I am sure he can answer because it is quite obvious that he has had these figures checked.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I said generally, Mr. Chairman, that the calculation of the leader of the opposition on any paper of any number of pages that he has cited there is based on the assumption that any one of the papers to which he refers would pay only one and one-half cents. I do not think there is any newspaper-any of the larger ones, anyway; let us put it that way -that did not pay let us call it a fine of four cents for having over 50 per cent advertising, as it used to be. All the large dailies have paid that four cents; and from the moment it passes the 50 per cent advertising content and pays the four-cent rate, then it cannot be claimed that any of the bottom
Post Office Act
figures cited by the leader of the opposition are right. I picked those 32 pages to which the leader of the opposition had referred and I, having seen it on this letter of the Globe and Mail, made the comparison between the two. The leader of the opposition had said that a newspaper of more than 10,000 circulation-


George Alexander Drew: Give it for the Toronto Star as an example. You have checked it.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: No, I have not checked it. I am sorry, but the figures would not agree. I am sure that the figure at the bottom would not be $2.34.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to do more than to point out that the minister has obviously had certain computations made, and has made those computations on the basis of a statement I made. If he will refer back to that statement he will find that I referred to the 50 per cent advertising. The figures I have given are figures based on the rates set out in section 11, and they are figures which do not include the supposition that there is in excess of 50 per cent of advertising.


Jean Lesage: There was.


George Alexander Drew: Just a minute, Mr. Chairman. The reason is perfectly obvious. I also hope that the attitude of the minister toward this whole problem will be fully understood by the public and by those who are interested in the matter when he used the word "fined" in relation to advertising. Obviously in the mind of the minister people who advertise should be fined. He used that word.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I did not use that word in that way. I called it a fine, for want of a better word. I said "Call it a fine".


George Alexander Drew: The minister used the word
"fine". The fact is this. I referred to that very proposition and pointed out that, under the amendments now proposed, it was intended to remove that inducement to hold the advertising down to 50 per cent. I pointed out that this, far from being a fine, was an obvious inducement to the newspapers to retain the maximum amount of space available for news, consistent with the general attitude toward newspapers as a means of distributing news in this democracy of ours.
Before I proceed, I will simply ask the minister one question. Basing these computations on the figures in section 11 as now proposed, or as it was proposed without these amendments, and the provisions that existed at the time that I made these computations, and not taking this inducement provision in regard to 50 per cent advertising, does the

Post Office Act
minister question that the figures which I have just quoted from Hansard are correct?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: They might be ideal, but unfortunately they do not conform with the facts.


George Alexander Drew: I asked the minister if, without any reference to the inducement provision with regard to 50 per cent advertising, the figures I used as reported at page 3511 of Hansard are correct. He can give an answer because he has had them checked.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Certainly I have had them checked. That is the reason why I say that these are facts. Whatever this newspaper was-or any other newspaper that the leader of the opposition had in mind-it in fact did pay something last year, and the figures that he has quoted are ideal. But they cannot conform with the facts; because every one of them has paid some part of their content under the four-cent rate.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, from the refusal of the minister to answer the question, it is perfectly obvious that he knows that the figures I gave were accurate and that they are accurate. As to the 50 per cent, that was not a fine. I wish that the minister would not try to divert the attention of the members from the real facts of this case by wholly imaginary diversions of this nature. There is a perfectly obvious reason why the 50 per cent was provided, whether it was sound or otherwise. That was, first of all, to offer the newspapers an inducement to retain for news that 50 per cent space, or as close to that as possible. On the other hand, there is the fact that every child of reasonably mature years knows that advertising is paid for and that if a newspaper is carrying a substantially increased amount of advertising they are finding some additional source of revenue to carry on the ordinary functions of the newspaper. That has nothing to do with the accuracy of the figures which I notice that the minister carefully refused to challenge, when I place it on the basis on which it was placed when it was put before the house.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I did not refuse to challenge it.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, it is a very interesting thing that the minister should be so emphatic with regard to one particular newspaper and should have so much information in regard to it, and at the same time should be so strangely disinterested in any other newspaper, although I had referred to a great number of other categories which obviously would refer to other newspapers across this country. It is extremely interesting that in the city of Toronto, where there

are three large newspapers, he was not sufficiently curious to find out what the effect would be on a newspaper known as the Toronto Daily Star or on the Toronto Telegram, but only found occasion to examine the figures with regard to this one newspaper. I must confess that this situation indicates that the minister attaches more importance to that paper than some of his colleagues have, on some occasions, suggested they were prepared to give it. Perhaps his education is advancing as indicated by this attention. I would point out, however, that even if it was not a matter of interest to him in the case of Toronto, perhaps in the case of Montreal he might have been interested in finding out comparable figures with regard to La Presse, the Montreal Star, the Gazette and several other newspapers in Montreal. Then he could have given us a broad analysis of those figures, instead of simply taking particular figures out for the purpose of creating an impression which he sought to convey this afternoon. In so far as any individual newspaper is concerned, it will be able to deal with this subject effectively through its accounts. I was referring to the general items and to the figures of postage rates as set out in the bill as it was before the new bill was introduced. As the minister has pointed out, and as I pointed out when we discussed this before, there was of course a 50 per cent advertising rate, and only the Post Office Department and the accounting departments of these newspapers are in a position to inform this house as to what the percentage of advertising rate is.
In so far as these amendments are concerned, it would appear that in the first one, which is an amendment to section 11, subsection 2 (a) (i), there is a provision that newspapers with a circulation of 10,000 or more will pay two and one-half cents for each pound of weight or fraction thereof, in respect of the portion that is not devoted to advertising, and four cents for each pound of weight or fraction thereof, in respect of the portion consisting of advertising. What is happening here is that the Postmaster General is returning to the idea of offering an inducement of some kind for news space as compared with advertising space, something which was not covered by the bill now before us. As this would work out, if a newspaper had exactly 50 per cent news and 50 per cent advertising the net result would be that it would pay three and one-quarter cents a pound. What that works out to is something that will have to be computed, and which we cannot compute quickly here this afternoon. It is still a very substantial increase from one and one-half cents.


Jean Lesage: Plus four cents.


George Alexander Drew: I am sorry; plus what?


Jean Lesage: Well, it was four cents when 50 per cent or more was advertising.


George Alexander Drew: I am talking about what the
provisions were in regard to ordinary circulation where the advertising did not exceed 50 per cent. And I would point out that this is a substantial increase from the rate of. one and one-half cents which was in the act before.
Now in so far as the other amendment is concerned, which is an amendment to subsection 4 of section 11, it is something that would have to be worked out with certain examples before one would be able to determine exactly what the effect would be. In this respect, and with the new postal rates before us, before I refer to this amendment further I would ask the minister if he will tell me whether periodicals coming in from the United States pay the postal rates of Canada or the postal rates of the United States? If they pay the postal rates of the United States, are these rates higher or lower than Canadian rates?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: United States publications
have two ways of coming into the country. Some of them are mailed in the United States. When they are mailed there they of course carry United States postage which, at the present time, compares with the figures in the bill. United States rates are lower, but they are also considering an increase in their rates. The publishers of some magazines will send their magazines in bulk to some Canadian post office, from which they are mailed, and these of course are charged Canadian postage.


George Alexander Drew: The situation would be then,
with these rates which are now before us adopted, that publications coming in from the United States under the laws that would be then in force in Canada and in force in the United States would pay less than Canadian publications sent by the Canadian postal service within Canada.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: That depends on the increase that they will have over there.


George Alexander Drew: We cannot guess what they are going to do, and so far they have only indicated that they are considering the possibility of a 20 per cent increase in their postal rates this year, and that has not even come before congress.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: That of course produces a
deficit of $589 million a year over there.


George Alexander Drew: When the minister says that, it brings me back to one question that I am
Post Office Act
asking. The minister said a good deal about a deficit of $12 million. I understand he is not suggesting that that $12 million deficit arises from the carrying of newspapers or periodicals.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Second-class mail.


George Alexander Drew: Only of newspapers and
periodicals?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Correct.


George Alexander Drew: Does that involve newspapers or publications coming in from the United States? Let me ask this question. In view of the very large distribution of publications from the United States in Canada, has the minister had any computation made of the cost to the Canadian postal service of handling publications coming into Canada from the United States and paid for by postage in the United States, which goes to the United States government?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Most of the United States magazines are posted in Canada.


George Alexander Drew: All right; I still come back to the question. Has the minister had any computation made of the cost of handling United States newspapers, periodicals, publications or other second-class matter, coming from the United States with United States postage paid to the United States government?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: As far as newspapers are concerned, very few do enter Canada. The American newspapers are not in competition with Canadian newspapers to any great extent. A comparison might be made between United States magazines, and as to them, the great majority are sent here in bulk and posted in Canada. As to whether I have had a survey or a study made of that, the answer is no.


George Alexander Drew: The minister says he has not had a computation made; therefore it is not easy to compare the rates. But he has given us the answer in regard to publications coming in, whether it is a large or a small percentage. I would point out that whatever number do come in from the United States, they are contributing to whatever the deficit is, so you must bear that in mind in examining these figures. It has not entirely arisen from the handling of our own newspapers and our own reliable periodicals.
I come back to the fact that there is one way in which added revenue could be obtained, and in the process of obtaining it the postal department would be doing something of very great advantage to the people of Canada, and that is, to place really high postal rates on crime comics, sex magazines and trash of that kind, which no Canadian

Post Office Act
parent wants to see coming into his house if he can possibly avoid it. I would suggest there are ways of raising revenue from those publications which play no useful part in the functioning of our democratic system, and that in this way it would be made possible to extend perhaps greater advantages to those publications which perform a useful service.
May I refer to the suggestion that this is a subsidy to the newspaper. This is a provision by which the people of Canada can get newspapers at a rate lower than would otherwise be the case. I do not think for one moment that the Postmaster General believes that the newspapers across this country are going to absorb the increased postal rates involved in whatever amendments may be adopted. By virtue of the fact that a substantial part of their space is devoted to revenue earning advertising, undoubtedly the newspapers will charge some of the increase to that advertising. I am not in a position to say how it would work out; but one thing I am sure of is that in this or any other business the added cost is going to be added to the price ultimately charged for that thing the people are buying. This applies whether it is a newspaper, a pair of shoes, an automobile or a food item.
It would be well if we got away from the suggestion that provisions of this kind are simply subsidies for the newspapers which the people, after all, buy for purposes of reading.
While every appropriate measure should be taken to place our public services on a businesslike basis, it can only come with some measure of surprise that a postal rate which has stood so long at the figure which has been on the statute books should require suddenly to be raised to the extent it is now being raised in the amendment before us.
The Postmaster General has referred to the United States, and what is being done over there. I would point out that if in the United States they go ahead to provide increases, such as the Postmaster General has suggested are likely, it has been indicated that those increases will not be made at one time, but that they will be made in three stages. So that the course we are following is one which produces a much more severe impact upon those who will be using the newspapers.
One point the Postmaster General did not explain has to do with the effect of the change on the smaller newspapers, and what the advantage of these amendments will be to newspapers with a circulation of less than 10,000. That is I believe a matter of perhaps greater importance to many people who rely

for their news upon the publications with smaller circulation. When the Postmaster General places so much emphasis upon the necessity for meeting these deficits, it is interesting to note that the government apparently proposes to adopt a very different attitude toward this type of distribution of news from the attitude adopted toward the distribution of news by radio. Because while the government is ready to accept the proposition that deficits are necessary in connection with the distribution of radio news, evidently a different attitude is to be adopted toward the distribution of news by the written word which, as I said earlier in my remarks, is a much more important means of conveying to the people, in a form they can remember and re-examine, those facts upon which the decisions in a democratic country can be made.
There is no use saying that in this instance the newspapers have advertising, because we know that our publicly-owned radio system also accepts advertising. So that there are sources of revenue in both cases.
It is not possible to make an exact computation in the light of the amendment suddenly placed before us. We can only wait. Certainly we welcome the thought that there may be any reduction in these postal rates which, in the end, the people will have to pay. I hope that when the computations are made it will appear that the results are more satisfactory than is suggested at first glance from the figures before me.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Why do the publishers of American newspapers and magazines find it to their advantage to send them in bulk to Canada?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: They have discovered that the publication reaches its destination more quickly in that way.


Joseph William Noseworthy: It is not because it would cost more to mail them?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: No; on the contrary it would cost less.


Mr. Black (Cumberland):: The minister has mentioned several classifications of newspapers, according to circulation. What is the classification of semi-weekly papers, a number of which there are in Canada? Are they classified as weeklies?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: For the first time in the history of our postal administration we have made a separate class for semi-weeklies, and have described it as bi-weeklies. Perhaps it would have been better if we had used the description "semi-weekly". They are set out in subsection 2 (b).


Percy Chapman Black: Is the rate on the bi-weekly higher than on the weekly?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: The rate is set out in the bill. Where there is a circulation of 10,000 or more it is three cents per pound; a circulation of less than 10,000 copies, two cents per pound. Then, for weeklies where there is a circulation of 50,000 or more copies, three cents per pound; where there is less than
50.000	but 10,000 or more, two and one-half cents; and where there is a circulation of less than 10,000 it is one and one-half cents. That is found in section 11.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: May we take it for granted that the letter which was used in argument this afternoon was a letter that was not sent by the Globe and Mail to the minister? No one has yet found out whom it was sent to; but it came from somewhere, out of the blue.
I should like to have some figures with respect to smaller newspapers in smaller areas. We have heard a quotation this afternoon concerning one of the large daily newspapers. I should like to know what it will cost a newspaper with a circulation of 13,000,
8.000	of which go through the post office. It is a 16-page paper and it is guaranteed that the advertising will not be over 50 per cent.


Jean Lesage: Would the hon. member give the proportion of advertising?


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I said not exceeding 50 per cent.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: It would be approximately three-quarters of a cent per paper.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: How much would that be per pound?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: With a 16-page paper it would be four papers to the pound.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: This Charlottetown paper has a circulation of 8,000 going through the post office. At the present time they pay from $35 to $40 per day. So far as I can figure, with this amendment there would be part of it at two and a half cents per pound, some at four cents, some at four and a half cents and probably more. I have given the minister the information.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I am afraid the calculation is impossible. Any amount we could give the hon. member would be purely hypothetical because we do not know the advertising content of the paper the hon. member has in mind.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I told you exactly what it is.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: The hon. member gave a figure of 50 per cent, but is that the actual advertising content?
Post Office Act


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: It will never be over that,
because it is a 16-page paper.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: If it is below that figure
there is quite a difference; if it is 45 per cent or 50 per cent.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: It would not be very much
below because they could not exist.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: The fact that up to the present they have not reached a content of 50 per cent does not mean that they will not reach 40 per cent or perhaps 35 per cent.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I cannot understand why the minister cannot give those figures when he has given the figures for the Globe and Mail.	*


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: The Globe and Mail is the
only paper that has raised its rates. I know of no other paper that did that. When I got that letter I made up the computation.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: There is no use the minister losing his temper and wanting to fight. I am quite prepared to fight if he wants to; I will go all out with him. I am going to get these figures if we have to stay here for a week. If they can be made up for a big metropolitan paper, I am going to get them for this paper. This bill, this section particularly, is aimed at the smaller newspapers. The large newspapers have different methods of distribution. They deliver much of their circulation by truck and the post office does not get anything.
The smaller newspapers should not have to pay the whole shot. As I said before, I am referring to the Charlottetown Guardian, which has the largest circulation in Prince Edward Island. As their slogan says, they cover the island lijce the dew, and I do not mean Roderick Dhu. I will give the minister the figures again and perhaps it will not interfere with his meal hour to figure out what the new rates will mean. This paper has a circulation of 8,000 going through the post office for delivery throughout Prince Edward Island. It is a 16-page paper with advertising not exceeding 50 per cent because the readers would not permit it. In fact, they have had to refuse advertising.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: That is exactly the point.
The fact that it will not exceed 50 per cent does not enter into the calculation at all. Under the new amendment, those that have less than 50 per cent will pay on the four cent rate. In order to make an accurate calculation we must know the exact content. I am not going to give a hypothetical answer and then have a newspaper say that I have given a figure in the house when it should have been different.

Post Office Act


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Give an estimate.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I cannot.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: The minister can give an
estimate on the basis of 8,000 copies with 50 per cent advertising. If I had the information here I could figure it out myself.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: When the committee recessed, Mr. Chairman, I had been asking the Postmaster General to give me the facts and figures in connection with a certain newspaper. I need not mention its name because the minister has already referred to it. I gave him the particulars; 8,000 copies were going through the post office daily, with never more than 50 per cent of advertising and a paper of 16 pages. If the minister will tell me what it is already costing this paper for postage and what it will cost after this amendment I may be able to understand the meaning of the amendment. This newspaper is peculiarly situated, in that it is located in a small province and has a large circulation almost exclusively to our own citizens. Therefore they have to be careful to give them at least 50 per cent reading matter. I think I have made it plain enough so the Postmaster General can give me some idea of the comparison before I resume this debate.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Various other factors might enter into the calculation. The advertising material is not the only thing. There is the weight of the paper and the size of the paper which would also enter into the calculation, because they are not all standard. If the hon. member has reference to the Guardian, as I think he has, in the past on occasions that newspaper has sometimes gone past the 50 per cent mark. I would not like to put on Hansard a figure that could be quoted against me later on if the calculations proved to be inaccurate.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: You need not make it the case of the Guardian, then. Why can you not put those figures on record? You know the advertising material does not exceed 50 per cent; we are giving you that in good faith. In a 16-page newspaper they would not be allowed to have 60 or 70 per cent of advertising. The odd day it might go below that; the odd day it might go a little over; but surely the minister can give me an estimate of what it would cost this newspaper per day. Would it cost $40 a day or $50 or $60 for the

8,000	copies that go through the post office? They are delivered to about one hundred postmasters throughout the country, where they are distributed to the mail couriers and box holders. Surely we can have something definite on it. How could the minister get all those definite figures in regard to the Globe and Mail? They did not give him as much information as I am giving him. He knows where this is coming from, and he did not know where the other information came from; or if he did know he did not tell us. Surely he can give me some kind of estimate.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I have already explained to the hon. member that I am not in a position to give an estimate. Even if I were I probably would not do so anyway, because every member of the house would ask for a similar estimate in connection with the newspaper in his own town.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I do not think that is an answer at all. Let us figure it out this way. With a circulation of 8,000, under the amendment it is two and a half cents per pound. You could easily figure that out because you told me earlier you figured four copies of a 16-page paper made a pound. This has 50 per cent reading matter, and in that case you charge four or maybe four and a half cents. Again I ask the minister in all fairness to give us an estimate. I do not see why he wishes to discriminate against a newspaper in my province. I know it has been the habit of the government to discriminate against Prince Edward Island in many different ways, even through the postal department. A few years ago, for example, when they were making some changes and putting in a head officer for each province, we were the only province left out. They tacked us onto New Brunswick. I have dealt with that matter before; but here we come to something that is of vital interest to my province. How much are you going to tax this paper? If you had left it as it was, I could figure that out myself; it was going to cost them from $93 to $102 daily and about $122 on Saturday. The situation is a little different now and I cannot figure out whether it is going to be more or less, because I did not get the real meaning of the amendment. But if the minister and his officers will not give that information, why are they withholding it? You have it, or if you do not you could easily figure it out. On behalf of my constituency and the people of my province I believe I am entitled to a fair estimate. The minister is not going to be held to it strictly. That is an excuse that will not hold water; so I am going to ask him again. The minister need not commit himself. If he were five dollars a day astray, what would the difference be? It might be

one way or the other, and surely he can satisfy me and the newspaper by doing that.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: The hon. member made reference to a tax. We are not taxing any newspaper. All the Post Office Department is asking is that the newspaper pay a part of the transportation charges. It is a service for which we ask compensation, and that is no tax. I am sure that if the hon. member were still the owner of the Guardian he could make the calculation with the information he now has. I may add that the representatives of the Guardian were in my office and we discussed the whole situation. They were much less concerned when they left than when they arrived.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I might just say a word
more. I do not believe, Mr. Chairman, that is a fair answer for the Postmaster General to make. I am not pleading for myself, and that ought to make it a stronger case. I am pleading on behalf of a newspaper that is worth while in the small province of Prince Edward Island. The same thing is true in other provinces. I am not arguing any particular case. I am just using this as an illustration to show that we should have some fair treatment. Really all the small daily newspapers are being discriminated against, and all the favours are going to the large newspapers in the big centres.
They talk about advertising. Suppose a newspaper in the city of Windsor put out about thirty or forty pages per issue. It could easily pay the extra four per cent, because it could go around to the big industrialists and get two more pages of advertisements. Who would notice two extra pages of advertisements in a fifty or sixty page paper? The newspaper would still make money out of it. I believe the Guardian or any other newspaper has the right to have the figures put before this committee just as the Globe and Mail had its figures shown here today. They were used to show how little it would cost the Globe and Mail. I thought if the Postmaster General had continued a little while longer he would have been paying them a bonus.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: That is what we have been
doing for years.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Well, you have not been
doing it for us. This $40 goes a long way towards paying the help in your post office.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: When it costs us $160?


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I would ask you to give me those figures, and break them down. If you can show me where it costs that to deliver the Guardian, I shall drop the question right now.
Post Office Act


Alphonse Fournier: Still you would not
be satisfied.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I shall deal with you a little later. You are guilty of the same thing, and you are not going to put it over me while I am a member representing the people down there. If there is no one else from Prince Edward Island who will fight our causes, I am going to do so.


Alphonse Fournier: Until the 26th of
June.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: As I said before, I shall
attend to you later. A big score is piling up against the public works, and that will not -be such a happy position. However, we had better finish with the Postmaster General. Is he going to give me that information?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Mr. Chairman, the total
postage costs compared with the total cost of operation of a newspaper range from 1 [DOT] 1 per cent to about three per cent. The total portion of the cost represented by postage, even if there is a sixty per cent increase in postal rates, means that there is an increase of sixty per cent of one per cent. Are we going to continue a discussion on this very small amount?


Louis-René Beaudoin: At this point
perhaps I should say that I think the hon. member for Queens is under a misapprehension. I am just wondering if the hon. member is in order when he insists on finding out what the actual increase in cost will be for a certain newspaper. The amendments have been provided and explained. The rates are two and one-half cents and four cents. The hon. member will have to let the newspapers calculate the increase, or he will have to do it himself. It is a matter of mathematical computation. To follow this line of questioning would be tantamount to someone, when the Income Tax Act is before the committee, asking the Minister of Finance to calculate his income tax or that of some corporation about which he knows. I believe the hon. member for Queens should reconsider his position, because in my opinion he is not in order when he asks the minister to calculate the amount the newspaper will have to pay.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: You think the amendment will do that?


Louis-René Beaudoin: The only point I was drawing to the attention of the hon. member was that I did not think he was in order in asking the minister to give him the actual increase or decrease for a particular paper. What we are discussing now is the advisability of adopting the clause as amended.

Post Office Act


Robert Fair: I should like to ask the minister a question on section 11, subsection 2, paragraph (c), subparagraph (iii) which reads as follows:
with a circulation of less than 10,000 copies per issue, one and one-half cents for each pound weight or fraction thereof, subject to the exception that 2,500 copies per issue may be transmitted by mail free of postage within a distance of forty miles from its known place of publication in the case of a newspaper or periodical published in a city, town or village with a population of not more than ten thousand persons:
If that means what it says in plain English, it would mean that a publisher living in a small town and publishing not more than 10,000 copies could have 2,500 sent out free of charge. Is that correct?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: That is correct, and is a continuation of the practice. It applies to weeklies only, of course.


Percy Chapman Black: Mr. Chairman, I like to agree with you, and usually do, but I do not believe your ruling on the question of the member for Queens is quite fair to him. It is a serious matter to his constituents, and a serious matter to all the residents of Prince Edward Island. When this bill was introduced, I understood the charges were so exorbitant they would put the newspaper to which the member for Queens referred completely out of business. The Postmaster General has modified those charges, and the managers of this paper are better satisfied than they were, which is natural. I would think that the Postmaster General should be able to give a reply to the request made by the hon. member for Queens. If he cannot reply in dollars, he should be able to give an indication of what additional percentage of postal charges will have to be borne by the Charlottetown Guardian under the proposed amendment.
The operators of that paper certainly deserve credit for what they have done in recent years. They have now not only to meet these increased postal charges but they have to meet heavy sales taxes and many other charges that have to be borne by all the newspapers of Canada. Personally, I think the Postmaster General should be able to indicate to this committee, and particularly to the hon. member for Queens, what additional percentage of mailing costs will be imposed upon this paper in Charlottetown with regard to whose circulation the hon. member for Queens has given definite information. They know what they have been paying in recent years. As I said at the beginning of my few remarks, the charges that were proposed would put the paper completely out of business. The operators made [The Deputy Chairman.]
that statement to me. Personally, I "should like the Postmaster General to give much more definite information than he has given, so that the hon. member for Queens will have a better understanding of how these increased costs affect the paper in which he is directly interested.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Not any more.


Percy Chapman Black: It is not going to cost the Charlottetown paper any more?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: No. He is not interested in it any more.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Oh, yes, he is.


Alphonse Fournier: I thought it was public works.


Percy Chapman Black: I do not quite understand the remarks of the Postmaster General. I am quite sure that not only this paper but many others in Canada are anxious to know what additional costs will have to be borne by them. I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that many of these small rural papers are struggling today for existence, to meet the charges imposed upon them. They are performing an important public service in giving the news to their particular communities, and they are entitled to have more definite information than the Postmaster General has given to the committee tonight.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Percy Chapman Black: The Postmaster General refuses to give any further information?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I have already given all the information that I could on the subject. If I give any more information, it will be a very inaccurate "guesstimate" and I use the word guesstimate purposely. The amendment calls for a two and a half cent rate on the news portion and four cents on the advertising content. That makes an average of three and a quarter cents. If the hon. member wants to make the calculation, it is up to him to do so. It is only the newspapers themselves that can make the calculation accurately, in the same way as the hon. member for Queens is the only person-perhaps with his accountant-who can prepare his own income tax; and he certainly would not ask the Minister of National Revenue to tell him in advance what his income tax would be.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: They would not accept it.


Percy Chapman Black: The Postmaster General is planning on a material increase in his revenue. I would think that he should be able to give this committee the amount that he expects to get from the Charlottetown Guardian, in view of the figures that have

been presented to him. Then the hon. member for Queens and the other members of the committee would be able to appreciate the full circumstances, and they would be able to decide, in their own minds at least, whether a paper situated as is the Charlottetown Guardian will be able to continue. If it is not able to continue to operate as it has been doing, then I think these facts should be placed before the committee and that they should decide whether they are going to allow the Postmaster General to exact what I consider to be exorbitant additional charges, much too heavy to be paid by the ordinary newspaper serving the rural districts.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Mr. Chairman, is it in order to move an amendment to the amendment?


Stanley Howard Knowles: You can always try.


Louis-René Beaudoin: If the hon. member wishes to move an amendment, I will consider whether or not it is in order.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: There is probably no use in my going any further. The amendment has not been voted on yet.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. Perhaps I should make a suggestion to the committee. Since this section has four subsections and since two amendments have already been moved to two subsections of it, in order to make for more orderly debate perhaps I should suggest that we deal with each subsection separately. If the committee agrees to that procedure, we will carry subsection 1 and proceed to subsection 2 to which there is an amendment. Then if the hon. member for Queens wants to move a subamendment, we could then consider that. If that course is agreeable to the committee, we might follow it.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: The amendment I wanted to move was to section 11, subsection 2 (f).


Louis-René Beaudoin: What I am suggesting is that we consider each subsection separately, so that when we come to subsection 2 the hon. member may then move his subamendment. Shall subsection 1 carry?
Subsection 1 agreed to.
On subsection 2-Rates for newspapers and periodicals.


Louis-René Beaudoin: There is an amendment to subsection 2. I understand the hon. member for Queens has a subamendment.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I can move the amendment now. In view of the absence of facts in connection with the matter, I have to deal with this amendment in a slightly different way, and it may not be so favourable to the 80709-250^
Post Office Act
minister as if he had given me his own figures. I wish to move, seconded by the hon. member for Lanark:
That papers having more than 90 per cent of their circulation within a radius of seventy-five miles and which deliver more than 30 per cent of their papers through the post office, be continued at the present rate.
That amendment will be of great benefit to many papers in a situation similar to that of the paper in Prince Edward Island. I hope it will get some consideration from members who want to be just and fair to a struggling newspaper in a small province.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Mr. Chairman, I believe the amendment is out of order as it changes the revenue that is contemplated under this bill.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Before I put the amendment, I think that I should tell the hon. member for Queens that it might be well to revise this subamendment. The subamendment must relate to the amendment. The amendment is to subparagraph (i) of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of section 11 and the subamendment has relation to section 6 and section 11 (2) (f).


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Section 11 (2) (f)?


Louis-René Beaudoin: Yes. The subamendment must have some direct relation to the amendment. As it is, I do not see how the subamendment can be linked with the amendment. The hon. member should let the amendment go through and move his amendment when the other one is out of the way. His subamendment must relate to the amendment which is before the committee. He should move his subamendment after the amendment has been disposed of, which would be considered separately.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: The amendment which was moved this afternoon is to reduce the rate from four cents to two and one-half cents a pound. My amendment to the amendment is to reduce the amount again, so that they must be very closely related to each other. They both have the same object in view. If I knew the rules of the house as well as some other hon. members I would have my subamendment voted on.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I think the hon. member has omitted a word in his subamendment. If it is to be linked with paragraph (f) it should read as follows:
For any other newspaper or periodical, the rates prescribed by the regulations, provided that papers having more than 90 per cent of their circulation within a radius of 75 miles, and which deliver more than 30 per cent of their papers through the post office, be continued at the present rate.
Is that the sense of the amendment?

Post Office Act


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: The amendment is to reduce the charges. While it does not specify it, its object is to continue the rates as they are at present. They cannot go any higher than that.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Yes, but I am in
this difficulty. Amendments must be intelligible. They must be understood not only by the hon. member, but by the chairman and other hon. members as well. As it is now, it is certainly not a subamendment to the amendment to paragraph (d) (i). At this stage it is certainly out of order. If the hon. member would like to move it after the amendment that we now have before us is disposed of I think we could consider it.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Under what rule of parliament is it out of order?


Louis-René Beaudoin: There is a rule, which is very well known, that subamendments cannot be moved to amendments if they are not relevant. It is clear that this subamendment is not relevant to the amendment before the committee.


Mr. Carroll:: Has not the Postmaster General brought to your attention the fact that apart from this question of whether the subamendment relates to the amendment, it is out of order for another reason altogether?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On that point of order-


Mr. Dickey:: The parliamentary assistant.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My only interest in this matter, like yours, Mr. Chairman, is that it be looked at from a procedural standpoint. With regard to the point raised by the Postmaster General, which you were deferring until later, and which the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond has now raised-


William F. Carroll: I do not think that the chairman deferred it at all.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Oh, yes, I did.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thank you, sir. May I point out that when this bill was first introduced there was not a resolution preceding it. In other words, it was not regarded as a money bill, if there was no resolution preceding it.


William F. Carroll: The newspapers will be glad to hear that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On the question of procedure, all money bills that involve expenditure of money can only be introduced by a minister on a resolution in connection with which he states the approval of the Governor General. That was not done.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: This is not expenditure; it is revenue.
[The Deputy Chairman.1


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is exactly the point. The minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot claim that this is the kind of money bill which a private member must not upset, and now claim it is not a money bill; that he did not need to get the Governor General's recommendation. As far as that is concerned -and I am not speaking for or against the subject-matter of the motion-I am just saying that this is an ordinary bill; that it came in directly on first reading, and if it is in order to present it without the Governor General's recommendation, it is in order to try to change the cost provisions that are in it.
That is another question from the one you are dealing with now, Mr. Chairman. I agree with you thoroughly that if the hon. member for Queens is seeking to amend paragraph (f) of section 11, whereas at the moment the Postmaster General is seeking to amend paragraph (a), the thing to do is to decide on the amendment of paragraph (a); and then before you actually carry subsection 2 I know you will give the hon. member for Queens a chance to move his amendment to paragraph (f).


Louis-René Beaudoin: That is exactly what I proposed to the hon. member for Queens. I am not denying him the right to move the amendment when it is in order, but I say he is moving it in the wrong place and he is linking it to the wrong amendment. The amendment moved by the Postmaster General is to one section, and the amendment moved by the hon. member for Queens is to another section. Therefore let us deal first with the amendment that is before the committee. Let us dispose of that, and then the hon. member for Queens can move his amendment. I should like to read citation 364 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, third edition, which reads:
Since the purpose of a subamendment is to alter the amendment, it should not enlarge upon the scope of the amendment, but it should deal with matters that are not covered by the amendment; if it is intended to bring up matters foreign to the amendment, the member should wait until the amendment is disposed of and move a new amendment.
I think the hon. member should be satisfied with that.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I will be. Will you as chairman advise -me when the proper time comes, and I will move it then?


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member has given me the text of his amendment. As he indicated his intention to move it to paragraph (f), when the time comes, I will put his amendment.


Robert Fair: Before the subsection carries, may I ask the minister whether this bill pro-

poses any change in. the postal rates on weekly publications of less than 10,000? If so, what is the change?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: The regular postage prior to this bill on weeklies was one cent a pound, plus four cents a pound on more than 50 per cent advertising content. The proposed rate is one and a half cents.


Robert Fair: It is moved up 50 per cent?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: It depends of course on the advertising content of the weekly. The advertising content now is eliminated, but to compare one set of figures at one cent, plus four cents on the advertising content, with one and a half cents without advertising content, is very hard to do.


Robert Fair: There is a change in the rates.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: In the rates? Very little.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Is the committee ready for the question on the amendment?


Robert Fair: Mr. Chairman, the editors of some weekly papers have written to me protesting against any increase in their rates. I pass this information on to the minister, so that he will know about it.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Is the committee ready for the amendment? It is moved that:
Subparagraph (i) of paragraph (a) of subclause (2) of clause 11 of Bill No. 322, an Act respecting the Canada Post Office, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"11. (2) (a) (i) with a circulation of ten thousand or more copies per issue, two and one-half cents for each pound weight or fraction thereof in respect of the portion that is not devoted to advertising and four cents for each pound weight or fraction thereof in respect of the portion consisting of advertising, and"


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Louis-René Beaudoin: Then, we have another amendment. This one is to paragraph (f), and is moved by the hon. member for Queens. He has moved that subsection (2) (f) be amended by substituting for the present words in that paragraph the following:
(1)	Papers having more than 90 per cent of their circulation within a radius of 75 miles, and
(2)	which deliver more than 30 per cent of their papers through the post office, be continued at the rate of one and one-half cents per pound.
Perhaps this might be the proper time to deal with the point raised by the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond, and commented upon by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


William F. Carroll: I did not think I raised a point.


Louis-René Beaudoin: There is merit in the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on the point. What struck me, and my reason for deferring consideration of
Post Office Act
the point until later, was the fact that in his remarks earlier the minister referred to these sums as not being a tax. It makes it difficult to rule an amendment out of order on the point that it would upset the plans of ways and means, and upset the revenue. Although I must say I have some doubts in the matter, since this is a charge by the government for a service rendered, and since it is in fact a matter of raising revenue, it could be treated as not being amendable in this way.


Gordon Graydon: If it was, there should be a resolution.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Nevertheless, I
think the amendment could be accepted at this time.


Alphonse Fournier: Question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, may I take a moment to-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Alphonse Fournier: He says it is in order.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: He has maintained your point.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, may I speak to you?


Louis-René Beaudoin: If the hon. member wishes to speak to a point of order, then I shall hear him.


Gordon Graydon: Don't argue the case when the judge is with you.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I have already accepted the amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is fine; but there is one point I think should be looked into. I was going to call your attention, sir, to citations 449 and 450; however, you may look at them after this discussion is over. I might add that they support your ruling.
I was taking note of another aspect of the amendment. I have not a copy of the amendment offered by the hon. member for Queens, but I believe it is to the effect that the present rate be maintained. Once this bill is passed the previous rates do not appear anywhere. The words "present rate" will not then have any meaning.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: In the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Postmaster General says the present rate will then be the rate in the bill. In other words the hon. member for Queens in his amendment simply confirms the rates to which he objects. My point is that if he wants his amendment to mean anything he will have to realize that this is a brand new bill, and that he has to spell out in his amendment the rate he wants to apply to the kind of papers he mentions.

Post Office Act


Alphonse Fournier: Question.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I said ''the present rate". This bill has not yet passed. We are operating under the old rate. I do not think they are operating under the new one. The present rate is one and one-half cents.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When this bill passes the one and one-half cent rate will not have statutory authority.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: If the amendment carries-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Is the committee ready for the question?
~M.i. McLure: However, if I am allowed, I *shall insert the present rate of one and one-half cents per pound.


Alphonse Fournier: Then the hon. member is amending his amendment.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I am not afraid of giving figures, even if the Postmaster General is.


Gordon Graydon: That fixes it, Chester.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Is the committee ready for the question? The question reads that there shall be substituted for paragraph If) the following-
(1)	Papers having more than 90 per cent of their circulation within a radius of 75 miles, and
(2)	which deliver more than 30 per cent of their papers through the post office, be continued at the rate of one and one-half cents per pound.
Amendment negatived.
Subsection 2 as amended agreed to.
Subsection 3 agreed to.
On subsection 4-Rate where letter carrier service.


Louis-René Beaudoin: There is an amendment to this subsection, as follows:
All copies of newspapers and periodicals referred to in this section, other than those referred to in paragraph (f) of subsection 2, that are addressed for delivery within the postal area of publication where there is' letter carrier delivery service are subject to postage at the rate of one cent for the first two ounces or fraction thereof and one cent for the next two ounces or fraction thereof and one cent for each additional four ounces or fraction thereof to each separate address.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Subsection 4 as amended agreed to.
Section 11 as amended agreed to.
Sections 12 to 21 inclusive agreed to.
On section 22-Invitation of tenders where amount over $1,000.
Mr. MacKenzie:: Mr. Chairman, before this section carries I should like to make a few comments with respect to it, and also I would have them apply to section 23. I am interested in these amendments to the Post

Office Act. However, I was sorry to find, upon reading the bill, that it did not make any provision which in my opinion was satisfactory for the settlement of the problem with respect to rural mail couriers of Canada.
My constituency of Lambton-Kent is typical, I believe, of those in western Ontario, in that it has many rural mail contracts. I believe that all told there are seventy mail routes in the constituency, with ten stage services, or probably eighty all told. Throughout Canada I believe there are about 5,200 rural mail contracts, in addition to some 7,500 stage and side service contracts. These refer to services from one post office to another, or from railway depots to post offices.
The average price paid for rural mail routes throughout Canada is $53.30 per mile per year, or pretty close to $54. The contracts in operation in the constituency of Lambton-Kent run at approximately $54, so that in that constituency they are almost the same as the average across the country. These mail contracts have been let for years under a system of public tenders, in which four-year contracts are awarded. The contract is renewed at the end of four years without calling for public tender if the courier is willing to continue the service at the same rate and if there is no serious objection to the service being given. This practice has been in operation for a long time.
Between 1945 and 1947 the cost of operating rural mail services increased along with the general cost of living. In March 1947 a special act of parliament was enacted which provided for the bonusing or subsidizing of mail contracts then in force. This was called, the Mail Contracts Supplemental Payments Act. That act was in operation for one year and then was extended for another year, so it was in operation from 1947 to 1949. Many of these contracts had previously been awarded at ridiculously low rates and they were adjusted to take care of the increased cost of operation. The new price was agreed upon between the post office officials and the contractor.
I would think that during those two years approximately 90 per cent of all the rural mail contracts in Canada were adjusted. When those contracts had expired at the end of four years of operation the subsidies or bonuses were incorporated in the new contracts. The new contracts provided for a larger remuneration than had been agreed to when the tenders were accepted. I think it is generally accepted among the rural mail contractors that that was one of the

best moves that had been made in many years on behalf of the rural mail couriers.
It provided an equalization in the amounts received by rural mail couriers who were working out of the same post office.
I contend that the remuneration now paid to rural mail contractors was not arrived at by means of public tenders. These rates were arrived at by the post office officials. Section 23 permits the awarding of contracts for $1,000 or less without calling for public tenders. I am quite satisfied that sections 22 and 23 do not clarify the situation. They make things a lot more difficult in the way of administration than they were before. I am quite syre that in my own riding of Lambton-Kent this section 23 will not affect five per cent of the contractors, and I am quite sure that is true of the rest of the dominion. Only those with very short routes will be helped by this new regulation.
I have received many letters from rural mail contractors stating that they cannot carry on under the present rates as costs have gone up greatly since 1949. Many of these men want to quit. Five mail routes operate out of the town of Bothwell. Quite recently one route was put up for tender and was awarded to the lowest bidder at approximately $70 per mile. The other four routes operating from the same post office receive approximately $50 per mile. If rural mail contractors decide that they are going to give up their old contracts in an effort to get new ones, tenders will have to be called and new contracts made out. In my opinion that would cost the department a great deal more than would the re-enacting of the Mail Contracts Supplemental Payments Act.
I urge the Post Office Department to consider re-enacting that act, because it would be most satisfactory to the rural mail couriers. I know it will probably be said that if that is done there will be a lot of patronage, but candidly I do not believe that would be true. I know of no patronage in Lambton-Kent in the past several years in connection with the awarding of mail contracts. These contracts have been awarded and renewed and adjusted by the Post Office Department. There were no reactions during the time the Mail Contracts Supplemental Payments Act was in operation and I had no complaints that patronage was being practised in any way.
Section 26 provides that bids may be got from anywhere at all. This matter will probably be dealt with under the next section. I contend that the public tender system in connection with rural mail routes is antiquated and should be liquidated. If that
Post Office Act
were done we would not have the difficulties we have now in awarding contracts. Most people handling His Majesty's mail are on a salary basis. This is true of all letter carriers. Then why not rural mail couriers?
The rural mail system was established in 1908, the first service being from Ancaster to Hamilton. In 1909 it was put into general operation all over Canada. Conditions have changed greatly. Let us bring this matter up to date and adjust these contracts so that they will meet the present cost of operation. Then these people should be put under the civil service or on some permanent basis. If that were done we would not need to go through this process from year to year.
Rural mail delivery should be extended to all rural residents in Canada. There is a lot of free franking and I would suggest that we do something to curtail that and extend rural mail delivery to all rural residents in Canada. It would not cost much more and, as someone has said, the post office service contributes considerably to our social and economic development. It should not be curtailed in any way.
I urge again the Post Office Department to re-enact the Mail Contracts Supplemental Payments Act. It worked well before and it will work well again and in the end will give us better service and cost the Post Office Department and the taxpayers a lot less to run.


Gordon Graydon: I think there is one piece of information the committee should have if we are to intelligently discuss the advisability of adopting this section. As you know, Mr. Chairman, this provides that the Postmaster General may make a contract for rural mail carriage where the amount of the contract is $1,000 or less. I think it would be germane to a discussion of this question to have some figures which I have no doubt the minister is prepared to provide. Would he tell us how many contracts in Canada, taking the present rate as a basis, would come under this provision giving the Postmaster General power to award a contract to anyone he sees fit? In addition to the number of those contracts I would like to know what percentage that number is of the total contracts for rural mail carriage throughout Canada.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: That would represent about
70 per cent in number and 32 per cent in value.


Gordon Graydon: Then may I ask another question which has been suggested by the hon. member for Cumberland. How many rural mail contracts are there in Canada?

Post Office Act


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: As of March 31, 1951, there were 5,087. On the point raised by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent concerning increases to contractors, as the hon. member has said the effect of the supplemental payments act was that about 80 per cent of all mail contractors had received adjustments prior to March 31, 1949. In order to see whether the time had come to put a similar act in operation we made a calculation of the percentage increase that had taken place from April 1, 1949, to date. We discovered that in 1946, when the supplemental payments act was put into operation, there had been an increase of 37 per cent in the previous year. On the other hand we discovered that from April 1, 1949, to date the increase on proportionate tenders and proportionate routes has been only 17 per cent. I can assure the house that the department is keeping closely in touch with the situation, and if this percentage increase reaches any greater proportions no doubt we will have something to present to the house in the fall if necessary.


Gordon Graydon: Has the minister invited the suggestions or opinions of the organized mail couriers with respect to this amendment, and are they satisfied with it?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I do not know that there is any association of rural couriers.


Gordon Graydon: I have attended some of their gatherings.


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: There is only one other point I would like cleared up. When the Postmaster General said this $1,000 provision would affect 70 per cent of the rural mail contracts, surely he was also taking into account all these side services, the short routes such as those from railway depots to post offices, stagecoaches, and so on.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: It would affect 45-4 per cent of the rural mail contracts.


Gordon Graydon: If that is the case why did the minister tell me 70 per cent?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Seventy per cent of the total contracts.


Gordon Graydon: The rural mail contracts.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: No, that is of all contracts. As far as the rural route contracts are concerned it would affect 45-4 per cent in number and 30-4 per cent in amount.


Mr. Kickham:: Some time ago I placed on the order paper a resolution having to do with mail couriers which was not reached owing to the passage of time, so I should like to say a word now. I agree with others who have spoken that some changes should be made in the remuneration of our mail couriers.

I do not want to take too much of the time of the house, but I should like briefly to go over the points set out in my resolution.
My idea was to place all mail couriers on the same basis, that of a permanent rate per mile. Since all mail couriers are performing identical services for the Post Office Department, I submit they should be placed upon the basis of equality, not only as between themselves but in comparison with other employees doing similar work for the government. This would eliminate the existing vagaries in the practice of tendering for contracts, which make every tender a competition. Often accepted tenders are so low that the contractors cannot make a living, with the result that the bondsmen must perform the service for one year before the contracts can be terminated.
My next point simply provided that the basic rate should be the present average rate. The next point was that the permanent rate should become effective on the expiration of the existing contracts. This would permit all existing contracts to terminate in accordance with their specified terms. My fourth point provided for an increase of 10 per cent.
I would not insist upon that in any regulation the department might see fit to adopt.
I would rather change that now to an increase over the average rate per mile now being received.
Many couriers have asked me to seek increases for them. They claim that their living costs have increased, together with the cost of equipment necessary to perform the service. I have had to tell them that no increases have been granted since March, 1949, on the termination of the supplemental benefits. The percentage increase would be a reasonable request, since the employees of all other departments have had their salaries increased. In my opinion there are far better grounds for increasing the rate of pay of the rural courier, who in performance of his duties must face the elements six days a week, and in the spring and fall often has to drive over very bad roads in stormy weather. In contrast to this, those employed in other departments have much shorter hours and perform their duties in well furnished and heated offices. This government has made successful efforts to deal with inequalities as they have appeared in our industrial and economic life. My sole purpose in rising was to bring to the attention of the government, in the most forceful way I could, the need for some adjustment. The purpose of the resolution was to bring to the attention of the government existing inequalities in the rural mail courier service itself, and to enable us to compare the insecurity

of the rural mail couriers with the security of other groups of employees engaged by the Post Office Department, who are afforded the security of sick benefits, pensions on retirement, yearly vacations with pay, while the rural mail courier is left to bargain with the department individually on unequal terms.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I feel quite strongly on this subject. Since I have become a member of this parliament I have had many requests on different occasions, and I have written to the Postmaster General directly. While the replies were always courteous and polite, nevertheless under our present act we could receive no relief for our mail couriers. There are many rural areas, Mr. Chairman, in which we are unable to provide daily mail service for the residents because of the regulation that there must be a minimum of four boxholders to the mile. I should like to see a change made in this regulation so that our farmers, fishermen, miners, lumbermen, the producers of our national wealth, would be placed on an equal footing with the urban dwellers in Canada. I am urging the minister to give this matter serious consideration. I believe the time has now arrived when a change should be made. It is difficult to convince the rural mail couriers who are serving the people of Canada honestly and well, often at great risk to their physical welfare, that now is an opportune time, when the Postmaster General is making some changes, to have these requests met.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: Mr. Chairman, I notice there is a considerable change in the wording of this section from the old section 73 from which it has been derived. I believe the Postmaster General had a discretion before, but there was a provision which put an onus upon him. He could only conclude such contracts in special cases by private agreement when he conceived the public interest would be protected by such a course. I notice that those words have been omitted, and the Postmaster General has been given a free hand to make such contracts without any such binding stipulations as the old section contained. I should like the Postmaster General to tell us how he proposes to enter into contracts which are under $1,000. Will he proceed in the same manner as he does now for those under $200? Can he give us any idea of the routine which will be followed?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: We shall proceed in exactly the same way as we are doing now for contracts under $200. As hon. members of the house will know, in awarding these contracts the Postmaster General is obliged to follow the amount ordinarily paid for services of a like nature under contracts made after inviting 80709-251
Post Office Act
tenders. There is a condition attached to this section which makes it compulsory for the Postmaster General and his employees , to follow the trend of the tenders, as we are doing now for contracts below $200.


William Joseph Browne: Can you
describe how you are doing that now?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: We are asking persons to submit offers, we do not call them tenders, and when they are reasonable we do accept them. If they are not reasonable we reject them and go after some other offers.
I believe I have already dealt with the question raised by the hon. member for Kings. If we were to establish some sort of average throughout the country for rural mail couriers, we would have an extraordinary situation. People who are now above the average would be reduced to the average, whereas others who are below the average would be elevated to it. There is a special reason why some couriers are below the average. It is because their route is not as long; there might not be as many boxes; the hours of service might be different; the conditions of the road might be different; the general climatic conditions might be different; and the degree of competition might be different. All those questions have some influence on the amount of the tender. If we have an easy contract that can be performed for say $49, and on the other hand we have another contract covering difficult conditions making a tender of $71 necessary, the person that is contracting at $71 would be punished very severely if we were to make some sort of average between those two. The one having the contract at $49 per mile would benefit to a great extent for performing these services.
There was one other question which I should like to answer. We calculate that since 1946 the average prices for rural mail couriers have increased by about 30 per cent.


Mr. Coldwell:: I wish to make a remark on these two sections. We are dealing with section 22, but section 23 is also involved to some extent. I understand that the minister and the department are having great difficulty, in some instances, in getting people to take contracts at current levels. I quite agree that often the tenders are of such a nature that the person who has a tender accepted is in reality performing a service for an amount far below what the service is worth. That should be remedied.
I just want to point out that, taking these two sections together, it really means that henceforth the Postmaster General will be able to award contracts of $1,000 or less without a tender. It seems to me that this is going

Post Office Act
back instead of going forward. What we are doing is opening the door once again to more of the patronage system. Ever since the first war the disposition of this house has been to get away from the patronage system. I believe that if a contract involving $1,000 is to be awarded, then it should be properly advertised and tenders invited. I do not say that the Postmaster General or the department should always accept the lowest tender, but I think the ability of the person tendering to perform the contract has to be considered. I think that this is opening wider a door that this parliament has tried to close for a good many years, namely the door of patronage. I personally think that it would be better to leave the act as it now is and to say that any contract in an amount of over $200 should be advertised and that tenders should be called. I think that would be much more satisfactory to the house, even if we expected the Postmaster General at times perhaps to award a contract to one who was not necessarily the lowest tenderer. But I personally think that we have tried in the House of Commons to get away from the patronage system; yet here we are once again opening the door a little wider than it has been in the past. I should like to see the old amount restored in this particular clause. Just to test the feeling of the committee on this matter, I am going to move:
That clause 22 be amended by deleting the words "more than one thousand dollars" and by substituting instead thereof the words "more than two hundred dollars."
That really has the effect of restoring the act to its original form. I think we are unwise to open wide a door that we have been trying to close in this parliament over the years. I know that objection may be raised that there is something like cutthroat competition, which means that the couriers often take contracts for far less than the service is worth. But at the same time I think we in this parliament are wise to try to get away from patronage as much as we can.


Gordon Graydon: I was going to ask the
minister a question in connection with subsection 1 of section 23. The procedure that was outlined by the Postmaster General, in answer to the inquiry of the hon. member for St. John's West, did not seem to me to be any too clear. It is perhaps my fault that that condition arose but, if I may, I should like to have the minister's assistance on the point. What actually is the procedure under that section, having in mind a comparable arrangement made previously under the $200 ceiling? First of all, the minister said, of course, that he invites offers. But
fMr. Coldwell.l
I am greatly interested in knowing what kind of invitation is extended to these privileged people and, second, what the form of the invitation is when it is so extended to them. Those are the two things that I think are important at this stage.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: The mail has to go through.
We have inspectors in the districts and we have postmasters in the districts, and they make inquiries from the persons who might be interested-such as taxi drivers or others -or who could be interested, and they endeavour to obtain from those people some offer to do the job. The offer is then referred to our department of communications here, which looks it over. If the offer is reasonable and if it is in keeping with the prices prevailing for similar contracts of like nature where a tender is called, then it is accepted. But if it is out of all proportion in comparison with contracts where tenders are called, then we do not accept it at all.
As to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, when the act was originally passed in 1867 the amount of $200 represented 86-9 per cent of the contracts. The value of money has increased considerably; I think fivefold is not saying too much.


Gordon Graydon: Careful.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It has decreased, you mean.


Major James William Coldwell: The value of money has
decreased.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: The value of money has
decreased to a fifth of its former value. I think that $1,000 today represents approximately the same value as $200 in 1867. I now found that under the $200 clause only 17 per cent of the contracts are covered.
As to the other suggestion, that for those contracts below $1,000 we could ask for tenders and not accept the lowest, I think that would make a farce of the tender system. Under section 24 the Postmaster General is obliged to accept the lowest tenderer who offers sufficient security for the faithful performance of the contract. We therefore could not have one system of tenders for one class and another set of tenders for another class.


Major James William Coldwell: Does not that phrase allow you some latitude even now? The section reads in part:
. . . the contract shall be awarded to the lowest tenderer who has offered sufficient security for the faithful performance of the contract . . .
That does not mean financial security only.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: It does to a certain extent.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, to a certain extent.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: For instance, we would not accept a drunkard as offering sufficient security. We would not accept as offering sufficient security one of our old contractors who had been dismissed for not performing his duties satisfactorily. There are also some other instances like that. For instance, there are the big contracts where a contractor must have quite heavy equipment. If a person is not sufficiently well off financially he could not, of course, offer sufficient security.


Percy Ellis Wright: I know of cases where the lowest tenderer has not been accepted. I know of quite a few cases in rural districts where the lowest tender was considered too high and the route was closed. Under this clause 24 it would appear that they must accept the lowest tenderer.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: On that question I would refer the hon. member to section 26.


Robert Fair: May I ask the minister whether the department has any objection to reletting a contract that has expired now or during the past few months, if they get a price approximately 17 per cent higher than the old contract price? The minister told us that the increase has been, on an average, approximately 17 per cent since April 1, 1949. In many cases I believe the contracts expiring now have been of a duration of four years. I wonder whether any objection is taken to letting the contract again to the old contractor for about 17 per cent, 18 per cent or 20 per cent above the old contract price.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Under the new system, if the contract is below $1,000 I suppose that would be possible. If the contract is over $1,000, I do not think it would be possible; we would have to call new tenders.


Robert Fair: I understand that perfectly. But in cases where tenders have been called, and where there have been one, two or three tenderers, I wonder whether there is any objection to letting the contract at approximately 17 per cent to 20 per cent above the old contract price. That is what I was trying to get at, and whether that procedure applies all over Canada or just to some sections.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: As I said before, the average price or the price tag for a route is fairly well fixed up in the minds of our employees. Of course, they have had to revise some of their figures; but as far as tenders go they know now approximately what a route should call for.
Post Office Act


Robert Fair: I know the officials have got things in their heads; I think some of these should be moved out. That is what I am complaining about.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I know they are tough
bargainers.


Robert Fair: I am trying to get service for people in rural communities, because I think they are the most important people in the country.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: At the present time under the existing set-up there is no authority for the Postmaster General to continue a contract except on exactly the same terms as the old contract, provided that he is satisfied the service has been satisfactory. Under the new system, as I said before, if the contract is below $1,000 there will be the possibility of revision, and when the clause passes it is my intention to deal with each of these cases; but over $1,000 there is still no authority in this bill by which I can do what the hon. member suggests.


Robert Fair: I will make it a little more specific in order to get a specific answer. A man took a contract four years ago. It was for $500. The contract has now expired. The contractor wants an increase of $100 over what he previously tendered for. What will the Postmaster General do in that case when there is only one tender received?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: At the present time, and until this clause carries, there is absolutely nothing I can do for him.


Robert Fair: When the clause carries, what then?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Then I suppose the contractor will have to give us three months' notice of cancellation of his contract. We will reexamine the matter, and we hope to be able to arrive at some mutually satisfactory figure.


Robert Fair: You have already fired him. He does not need to give notice. I am trying to get service. We had at least two country post offices that were closed when we were given rural mail service. This is my complaint. We had the post offices, which were closed, and we were given rural mail service. Now you have stopped the rural mail service because the man wants another $100.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I did not say that. I said we would probably come to a mutually satisfactory solution.


Robert Fair: I will come to see the minister in a very short time.


William Joseph Browne: Does the Postmaster General think that he is going to take on that responsibility? It would be

Post Office Act
very difficult for him to attend to thousands of contracts. He will not be able to do that.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: During the war under the supplemental payments act a hundred per cent of these contracts were covered, and yet the department was able to handle it.


William Joseph Browne: That is what I was going to suggest. You should devise some regulations of a general nature and not leave it to a rule of thumb to be handled in each case.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I suppose the regulations will be developed as time goes on. I am not 'going to deal with every one of them personally. The section says that the Postmaster [DOT]General may enter into contracts. It will be the officials of the department who will do that.


William Joseph Browne: I am interested in seeing that the people get fair play. There is a great deal of suspicion that political patronage plays some part in the giving of these contracts. I would like the Postmaster General to have it so that he would be above suspicion.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: There was absolutely no suspicion during the war while the supplemental payments act was in operation. I think it is only fair to say that the officials of the department conducted this without looking at any colours and they arranged the various contracts according to the merits of the application.


William Joseph Browne: Why is the
minister referring to what happened during the war? The war has been over for six years.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Because during the war we had exactly the same situation, and we were-


William Joseph Browne: How?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: We had the supplemental
payments act under which payments were made to rural couriers. That was in operation from 1946 to March 31, 1949, under under which any courier could apply to the department for an increase, and the department would look at the figures to see whether an increase was justified; and if the increase was warranted the department would grant it. The power is the same today as it was then.


William Joseph Browne: Is that act in force now?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: No.


William Joseph Browne: Why is the
minister bringing it up?
[Mr. Browne (St. John's West) .1


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: The principle is the same
today as it was then. If the officials of the department were able to look at the various contracts on their merits at that time, they are the same officials that are here today, and is there any reason to suspect that they would not do it today as they did it then?


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: I just want to support
what the Postmaster General has said with reference to the years 1947 to 1949. I quite appreciate, and I am sure the departmental officials appreciate, that it is rather difficult to set a basic pay, because you have different lengths of routes, you have different numbers of boxes on the routes, and you have different conditions of routes. That is quite true, but the fact remains that from March, 1947, to March, 1949, it was in operation; it did give good satisfaction, and if you do not believe me ask the 2,500 rural mail couriers.


Gordon Graydon: The minister spoke about
the regulations and the legislation known as the supplemental payments legislation. There was one grave objection to that from the standpoint of procedure, namely, that it unnecessarily tied the hands of the officials of the Post Office Department. What happened' was this. No real publicity was given to the fact that these supplemental payments were available to the rural mail couriers. There are hundreds of rural mail couriers across Canada who did not know that there was a supplemental payment made or available. So bad was the situation at one time that I decided to write to all my rural mail couriers and tell them it was available. Immediately I got a great number of replies, and in all fairness to the officials of the department I must say that in most instances they received reasonable compensation for the amount that they should have received. But that did not cure the situation at all, because after the faces of the rural mail couriers had been ground down under this kind of legislation, which calls for the tender system, surely it was only fair that they should have been told by the government in some way or other that they were entitled to these bonuses if they applied for them.
To make matters worse, after a certain length of time had expired the law cut them off altogether from making an application for the bonus. If you were to take a census of the rural mail couriers for the last five years in Canada I fancy you would find a lot of people to whom the government owed money if the government had only allowed them to know that there was money coming to them if they made an application

for it. That is not a criticism of the officials of the department; it is a criticism of government policy that I think is inexcusable, and it was a shameful exhibition at the time in which it was done.
I only want to say this to the minister in connection with section 23. I realize his difficulties in connection with it, but I know that he has probably got in his mind the fact that if the tender system is removed -by the way it is only removed at the option of the government; it is not removed at the option of the individual. The government has held the trump cards ever since it was started, and they are continuing to do so. So long as they sit as a government they are going to be able to put their finger on a man in any section where they may want to have a rural mail courier, and no one will be able to do anything about it. On the other hand, if the government does not think the right person is doing the work, or if it thinks some change should be made, then it is free to open it up for tender. I can see, and I am sure other members in the committee must be able to see, that this opens the door to a condition of patronage I know no member is anxious to see in Canada.
I do wish to say that I am sorry there is not some provision which would be helpful in the act. If we are going to open up what looks like a patronage section and if we are going back to the dark ages in politics in connection with the appointment of rural mail couriers, then, in his own defence, I think the minister should have some provision in the act. He should have some kind of protection with respect to the awarding of these contracts. To my mind, it would appear to be a big responsibility because where patronage is not involved at all he will be suspected of patronage-and I do not want to have any such suspicion fall upon the minister.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: How kind of you!


Mr. Gray  don:@: If we are going to have a reversal to a medieval system of contracting, then, if it cannot be done out in the open while the contract is made, it certainly should be out in the open as soon as it is made. While post-mortems are not a great help, sometimes they save mistakes in the future.
I have no doubt the government is determined that this section shall pass, and undoubtedly the amendment offered by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar will not receive unanimous support from the government benches. It would have to have that support if it were to pass.
Post Office Act
When contracts are awarded, how are we going to know each year when we comeback to the session of parliament? Will there-be a special report laid on the table of the-house dealing with these contracts awarded; behind closed doors, shall I say? Will we-have the door opened in this way so that we will know what went on when these-contracts were entered into? I suggest parliament is entitled to have that. It is only a fair and reasonable suggestion to make, and I suggest to the minister that it should be done.
I would close by stating that I am sure the-minister knows, as do other hon. members in the committee, that I have been pretty faithful and persistent in my advocacy of a committee to deal with that part of the-legislation dealing with rural mail couriers, as well as other parts of it. I believe when we come to assess the time taken up in this session in discussing amendments to the Post Office Act the government will have to accept a large measure of responsibility for the fact that the bill was not allowed to go to a special committee of the house, where it could have been dealt with. In view of the fact that this is the first amending bill since 1867, so far as this act is concerned, it seems to me there should have been an opportunity for much more debate and discussion than we are now given. I am more certain in my mind now that I was right when I asked for a committee than I was when I originally asked for it.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Replying to the hon. member I would say that while at the beginning it might have been true that many of the couriers did not know about the existence of the supplementary act, at the end 80 per cent of them were taken care of through an increase made by the officials.
Then, as to the hon. member's second question, I would reply that at the present time there is no procedure for tabling in the house the names of contractors under the' tendering system. But when hon. members wish to place questions on the order paper they are free to do so, and I see no reason why that procedure should not be continued.


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: Mr. Chairman, I have one further comment to make. My understanding is that there was a special act of parliament in 1947 which provided a supplement for mail couriers, and that it passed through this-House of Commons. All members knew about it; and I am amazed to think that the hon. member for Peel did not know about it. If hon. members did not tell the post office authorities and have them tell the couriers,, then they were not on to their jobs.

Post Office Act


Gordon Graydon: I suggest the gratuitous lecture which has been read to some of us by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent must have been directed to someone other than myself. However, I do hasten to assure the committee that the great difficulty did not arise after the act was finally passed. If my memory serves me correctly, some of the greatest difficulties arose through the legislation by order in council under which the provision was originally instituted. When it was made in 1947, it came as part of legislation that was then being passed to take the place of order-in-council legislation of previous years. We had asked the government time and again to make these orders in council more public than they had been made. The rural mail couriers did not hear about it, and I think my hon. friend must bear some share of responsibility for that.


Mr. Stewart (Yorkton):: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to enter into any controversy which would hold up the passage of the bill. On another occasion, when we were discussing another section, I was ruled out of order when the subject of patronage was mentioned. However, I was surprised this evening to hear the leader of the C.C.F. attack the government and then move an amendment on the ground of changing from the $200 jobs, which existed when money was worth much more than it is now, to thousand-dollar jobs for hauling mail. In this way he has brought in the matter of patronage.
Well, I do not think I have the right this evening to go into the history of the C.C.F., so far as patronage is concerned. I would point out to the hon. member who has offered the amendment that, in so far as the Post Office Department is concerned, there are older Liberal members than I am in the House of Commons who no longer make recommendations to the Post Office Department, because they say those recommendations are never acted upon. So, as for patronage being practised in the Post Office Department, I suggest that what I have said is a clear indication that it is not. I know that condition is true in my own constituency.
However, as regards the hon. member's amendment, and its application to the subject of patronage, I suggest to the leader of the C.C.F. that he study the history of the only government in Canada that really practises patronage, and that is the C.C.F. government is Saskatchewan. The hon. member for Rose-t.own-Biggar will recall that when I was a member of the government of Saskatchewan we retained his services to act as head of a commission to bring in a report on the matter of patronage. He discussed patronage at the time-


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order. The hon. member may refer to patronage only as it applies to the Post Office Department.


Alan Carl Stewart: Then if I am to
limit it to the Post Office Department, I cannot go very far. However, I will say this, that it might be very helpful to pass the bill as the minister has introduced it, and thus give a chance to those C.C.F. chaps in Saskatchewan who now have $5,000-jobs to live up to the platform of the C.C F. party, so that they may resign their jobs and apply for $1,000-jobs with the minister.
There are plenty of them, including defeated candidates and others, who have taken jobs in Saskatchewan, and-


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, which section are we discussing?


Alan Carl Stewart: I did not think the leader of the Conservative party would object to a discussion of patronage because that party practised it in the past. I shall not go into the details of what has happened in Saskatchewan.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: The hon. member may refer to patronage in connection with the Post Office Department, but not otherwise.


Alan Carl Stewart: In so far as the
Post Office Department is concerned, the only suggestion I have to make is the one I made a minute ago. By passing this section we will simply permit the appointment to $1,000 jobs of persons who are now making $5,000 in Saskatchewan, many of whom were candidates for this house. The Postmaster General might consider that they had lived up to their platform. If they believe in it then they will cheerfully resign their present $5,000 jobs which were given to them at the expense of the taxpayers of Saskatchewan and will apply to the Postmaster General for these $1,000 jobs. At a later time I shall go into all the details of these 2,000 odd appointments in Saskatchewan.


Major James William Coldwell: I do not propose to enter into an argument with the hon. member for Yorkton whom I have known for a long time, but I want to say that as far as I am concerned I have always been opposed to political patronage. I am opposed to it now. If the hon. gentleman wishes to discuss Saskatchewan affairs, the place to do it is in Saskatchewan where I have no doubt he will be answered most adequately by those who have the responsibility of administering affairs in that province.


Alan Carl Stewart: Will the hon. gentleman say that patronage is not being practised by the government of Saskatchewan?


Major James William Coldwell: I am not responsible for what is being done in Saskatchewan, nor is this the place to discuss it.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I do not think this is the time and place to provide a cushion to sit on when we are defeated, which is' something that will happen to a great number of hon. members in the near future. If the hon. member does not know anything more about the Post Office Department than he does about patronage, then he will not be employed. This is a most serious item and it should not be tangled up with patronage; it should be tangled up with the proper method of running the government. This particular item might lead to serious results. How much does it cost the government which is endeavouring in a small way to save public money to call for a tender for a rural mail route? It would cost next to nothing if they did it in a common sense, businesslike manner.
Yet we find the government saying that they are going to leave this to the discretion of a man who is given the right to handle this amount of $1,000 of the taxpayers' money. He is to have the say about the competency of the man who is given the job. He is supposed to pick the best man to do the job. I remember a few years ago when I brought a certain matter to the attention of the department which took the proper action. A man who could not read correctly had been appointed as a rural mail carrier in my constituency. He would take a letter addressed to Mr. Smith and deliver it to Mr. Jones one mile away. I must say that when I brought this matter to the attention of the department they made a thorough investigation and found that my contention was correct, that the man was absolutely incompetent to carry the mail in that district.


An hon. Member:: He may not have been a good Liberal.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I do not know whether he was a good Liberal or a good Conservative, he was certainly a poor mail carrier. I must say that the government officials recognized that fact and the man was relieved of his duties and a competent person appointed in his place. This is the thin edge of the wedge. It may be only $1,000, but I do not think this principle should be extended at all as it will legd to bad practices.
The human element will enter into appointments of this kind. This is so in municipal, provincial or federal government affairs. I think the minister and his officials have the best motives in the world for requesting this change, but I appeal to them not to take this matter out of the hands of competent Ottawa
Post Office Act
officials or civil servants and place it in the hands, not only of defeated Liberal candidates but I can think of defeated Conservative candidates whom I would not like to trust with so much power.
While I am here it is my duty, as it is the duty of every hon. member, to see that no temptation is placed in the wrong hands especially when it may involve the taxpayers' money. There is a possibility that inefficiency will creep in and will remain unnoticed for months and the people will suffer. That is exactly what happened in the case I brought to the attention of the department. People complained to the postmaster and they went to other people. One or two inspectors came up and looked over the situation, but it required action by a man who meant business. The department wrote to me and said that my contention was quite right and they admitted that this man was delivering one mail one-quarter mile, one-half mile or one mile beyond where it should be delivered.
I can see where this might be permitted in the case of small routes involving $500 or $600, and I would not care whether a Liberal or a Conservative got it. But I know the investigation would not be thorough enough. While I have the utmost respect for the small country postmaster, I do not think the responsibility of making such appointments should be placed on his shoulders. I can understand that in the case of $250 or $300 time might be saved by making a temporary appointment, but when you are going to appoint a permanent rural carrier I do not think this practice should be followed. I remember the old teaching of my father-save the pennies and the dollars will take care of themselves. That is what I am urging now. I do not want to hold up the bill, but if we do not hold it up on these items the consequences may be considerable.
Amendment (Mr. Coldwell) negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 23-Postmaster General may contract where amount $1,000 or less.
William Joseph Browne: I have an
amendment to move to this section. I was discussing the old section 73, from which this section is derived, and I had drawn the attention of the Postmaster General to the following phrase in that section:
-when he conceives the public interest will be promoted by such a course;
I see no reason why those words which place a responsibility upon the Postmaster

Post Office Act
General should be omitted from the present section, so I should like to move:
That section 23 (1) be amended by inserting at the commencement of the subsection the following words:
"When the Postmaster General conceives the public interest will be promoted by such a course he"
I submit that is a very reasonable provision, which places upon the minister a responsibility he does not have at the present time. Now he has carte blanche; and I hope he will be prepared to accept the amendment.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I have no objection to this amendment, which I believe is taken word for word from section 73 of the present act.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 24-Lowest tenderer to be accepted except for cause.
Agar Rodney Adamson: This is the section which provides that the lowest tender shall be accepted, except for cause. Generally in commercial contracts the last clause provides something like this: "The lowest or any tender shall not necessarily be accepted." I realize that in dealing with tenders it is good practice usually to accept the lowest, but in some cases there are tenders obviously too low, which in the judgment of the residents of the area cannot be successfully fulfilled. I wonder if the minister would consider some practice such as taking the mean of all tenders submitted on a mileage basis and eliminating those say 20 per cent above the mean or 20 per cent below. I know of one case in particular, the man who was servicing my own district, where the tender was so low the contract could not possibly be fulfilled; as a matter of fact later on the route had to be split into three. But because he was a reputable man the tender was accepted. The facts of the case were not sufficiently investigated, and there was considerable trouble on that route.
There is just one other point in regard to these routes. When that man took over the route there were some 600 people living on it. By the end of the first year that number had increased to something like 1,400, and the number of boxes had almost trebled. I would like the minister to give the formula under which the pay is increased as the number of boxes goes up. My first question is whether there is any method by which a tender which is obviously well below the mean is not accepted, and my second question is what is the formula for extra payments for an increased number of boxes.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: The answer to the first question is no. The answer to the second question is none.


Agar Rodney Adamson: You mean if there are 300 boxes and that number increases to 600 the courier gets no more?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Not if there is no increase in mileage. If there is an increase in mileage there is an increase in proportion to the rate of the contract.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I think that is most unfair.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: When tenders are called and received, Why does the department write to those tendering and ask them to lower their tenders? Do they write the same letter to all those tendering?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I refer the 'hon. member to section 26 on that point.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 25 agreed to.
On section 26-Where tenders excessive.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Well, I will ask my question again. Why is it that when tenders are called the department then writes to the men who have tendered, or some of them, telling them their tenders are too high and asking them to reduce them? I thought when tenders were called the department would accept one. I have in mind a case over which we had a lot of trouble, and I am going to name the route so the Postmaster General will know what I am talking about. This was the contract for Vernon Bridge rural route No. 2, which was held by a man named Sullivan for a number of years at the price of $960. His contract expired in 1950. Before it expired the department wrote to him saying the price he was getting was considered too high. Then the department asked him to tender again, though they knew that other contracts for the same mileage were being signed for as much as $1,150. Notwithstanding that they wrote telling him he was too high and wanting him to reduce his price. He did not reduce it, so once more they called for tenders. This time he was the only tenderer at $960, and they had no alternative but to accept that tender, which they did. They sent Sullivan a contract for four years at $960, and Sullivan signed it.
In the meantime a fly got in the ointment. The department wrote that there had been a mistake, that the contract was only for one year, and they sent Sullivan a new contract for one year at $960. This he refused to sign, because he had already signed a contract for four years at the same price. Then the funny

pare of this thing took place. They called for new tenders again, and so it would not seem that they were calling for the same route again the department added an extra mile to it, dressed it up in a new costume and called for tenders. Naturally Sullivan tendered again, and someone else came into the picture with a tender some 30 cents a day lower than Sullivan's. The tenders were opened on December 29, 1950, and the contract was let on January 16, 1951; pretty quick work. That contract was with another man for four years, and for'$l,020. They did not give this faithful courier a ghost of a chance, though on two or three different occasions he had obliged the department by carrying the mail during the war years when they could not get anyone else to do it.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I'll bet he's voting Conservative now.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: If he is not, I miss my guess. Deals of this kind are going on all the time; and I am speaking now of my own constituency, which I know. I object to the department writing to a man.who had the contract before and telling him his tender was too high last year, he will have to go lower, and as soon as he consents, then the department sends somebody out to see if they can get another tender at a lower rate. Now, that is not what we should expect from the department. One sees the tendency in every part of this new bill to give more absolute power, to the Postmaster General. After a while it will become so bad it will be difficult to get people to carry the mail at any price. I think that is a question that should be looked into. For instance in my constituency, apart from the side districts, out of the seventy-nine rural contracts that are left fifty-two of them are below $1,000. They should all be let by tender, and more than three weeks should be allowed for advertising


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 27 agreed to.
On section 23-Guarantors.
Percy Chapman Black: May I ask the
Postmaster General in how many cases in the past year the guarantors have been called upon for a refund?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: There is no question of any refund, but in some instances the sureties have carried on the service. That is one of the reasons for having them as sureties.


Percy Chapman Black: Do I understand the Postmaster General to say that in no case have the guarantors been called upon to make a payment because of the failure of the contractor?
Post Office Act


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I would not go so far as to say there is no case, but I do not know of any.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 29 to 32 inclusive agreed to.
On section 33-Increase or alteration of service.
Mr. Pearkes:: Would the Postmaster General not have authority under this clause to increase the amount paid to a contractor if there had been a substantial increase in the number of boxes along his route? Quite obviously, boxes which are scattered all along a route mean additional expense to the carrier. I would have hoped that something could have been done to influence the patrons to collect their boxes together at a suitable place. As one drives along a country road one can see boxes scattered every fifty yards. As the number of these boxes increases, so does the expense of the courier increase because he has to stop every few yards. Would this clause not give the Postmaster General an opportunity of increasing the amount of a contract where there had been a substantial number of boxes added, although there might not have been any increase in the mileage?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: This is the old section 79, and it has always been interpreted as being based on a change in frequency and distance. The reason for interpreting it like that is contained in the lines following the one to which the hon. member was referring which reads:
Where there is a substantial increase or alteration in the service required under a mail contract necessitating additional expenditure by the contractor...
I do not think it adds any additional expense for a contractor to have one or two more boxes. The fact that the frequency is increased or the distance is increased does mean increased expenditure. I do not think an extra box means extra expenditure.


George Randolph Pearkes: I cannot accept that, because every time you stop a car and start it up again it takes more gasoline and it takes more time. If a certain interpretation has been given to that clause in the old act, surely now that we are having a new act we could have a new and more generous interpretation. The rural courier has a pretty tough time. The increase in the number of boxes in some areas is so great that many of these rural couriers are serving what amount to suburban areas. It is a question of stopping two or three times within a block. Every time the car stops and has to be started up again, it takes more of that man's time and takes more gasoline.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I appreciate the position taken by the hon. member for Nanaimo in trying

Post Office Act
to give me more power than I have been requesting. It makes a difference with some other members.


George Randolph Pearkes: I do not mind powers if they are used reasonably and intelligently.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Considering the possibility there is to use the additional powers that have been given to me-


George Randolph Pearkes: I believe those powers are written right into that clause.


Agar Rodney Adamson: That is exactly the point I tried to raise. Years ago in my own constituency there used to be two or three boxes where now there are as many as thirty boxes. Our rural mail man has to stay there for as much as a quarter of an hour to deliver the mail to all those boxes. Sometimes the mail is substantial, and all the time he has to keep his car running. Surely his time must be worth something. The car has to have extra capacity in order to carry the great volume of mail he has to put in the back of it. It is a much more expensive business than it was in the old days. I recall that the rural courier used to be through his job by midday or by one o'clock in the afternoon. Today he has so many boxes to look after he is not through before five or six o'clock. Surely if he were paid a certain amount to do half a day's work, even though the mileage is the same, there must be some formula by which he can be paid more if it takes him a whole day to do the job.
Many rural mail couriers used to have a half day's work to do, but now it is a fulltime job. They used to be able to do other work, but that is precluded. I feel sure there should be some formula in this a?t by which the rural mail courier could be paid on a per box basis over a certain period.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Mr. Chairman, the section has never been interpreted in that way, but after listening to the arguments of the hon. member, perhaps it should be interpreted that way.


George Randolph Pearkes: May I suggest one other
reason for giving it a more generous interpretation. A few years ago we had a bonus system-


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: That is what I just said.


George Randolph Pearkes: No, you did not say that. I am pointing out another reason why you could give it a more generous interpretation. A few years ago there was a bonus system for these rural mail couriers. Now that has been eliminated, and I believe this section gives an opportunity for a more generous interpretation than the old section.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 34 to 44 inclusive agreed to.
On section 45-Transportation of United States mail.
Gordon Francis Higgins: Will the minister state how this section will apply to mails going to United States bases in Newfoundland?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I do not know whether this will cover the point that my hon. friend had in mind. This is a reciprocal arrangement and it is covered by the convention between Canada and the United States which reads as follows:
The United States of America and the Dominion of Canada each grants to the other free of any charges, detention or examination whatsoever, the transit across its territory, by all trains that it uses for its own mails, of the closed mails made up by any authorized exchange office of either country addressed to any other exchange office of the same country, or to any exchange office of the other country.


Gordon Francis Higgins: When did this convention come into force?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I have not the date here. I will try to get it.


Gordon Francis Higgins: The point I am making is this. This is a brand new act which is being put in and it is going to be superseded by what has gone on before. I think you would have to amend that particular section.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: This section 45 covers the regular international convention or agreement. Maybe what the hon. member has in mind is paragraph (s) to which I drew the attention of hon. members when we were considering section 6. That might be the question the hon. member would like to know about. That paragraph (s) flows from the declaration that was made the other day by the Prime Minister about the Newfoundland bases.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Should it not go farther than the section shows there? What about civilians at those bases? Is that not to apply to them at all?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: No. Civilians are covered by the ordinary postal laws.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I mean civilians in the sense of wives of service personnel. Where do they fit in?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I think that section 6 (s) covers the whole point. If there are any particulars the hon. member would like to have, if he will call at my office, we can give him anything that he wishes. All the necessary authority is in the act at the present time.


Gordon Francis Higgins: If the minister is satisfied, all right. I am far from satisfied that that

section is right as it is, but if the minister does not wish to amend it, I do not want it to be amended. I may say quite frankly, however, that I do not think it is right as it is.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 46 to 74 inclusive agreed to.
On section 75-Evidence.
Agar Rodney Adamson: I do not want to spoil this perfect holiday so far, Mr. Chairman, but I gather that the term "royal mail" is no longer applicable. The section reads as follows:
In any prosecution under this act evidence that any thing bears the words "Post Office," "Canada Post Office," "Canada Mail" or any similar expression is prima facie proof that the thing was established or authorized for use in connection with the Canada Post Office under the authority of this act.
I understand that the term "royal mail" now has no significance in Canada.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: The hon. member will notice that the name of the act is "An act respecting the Canada Post Office."


Agar Rodney Adamson: Yes. But this term "royal mail" is now an obsolete term in Canada. That is the point I am getting at.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Yes.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I regret that.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 76 and 77 agreed to.*
On section 78-Repeal.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Before section 78 carries, there is a word I should like to say. But before I say what I want to say on section 78, may I ask Your Honour to look back to the section which you called as section 53?


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Yes. It is numbered "35".


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is being corrected, is it?


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Yes. There is a correction to be made.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: It is "53" on my copy.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have two copies here, and it is "35" in both of them. I move an amendment that the "35" be changed to "53".


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the section as amended carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the title carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just a minute, Mr. Chairman. I want to say a word on section 78.
Post Office Act
I realize that it is unusual to get an amendment through around here, but I just wish to make a brief comment on this section for the repeal of various items of legislation now on the statute books, including part IX of the Excise Tax Act. The repeal of that legislation has to be looked at in conjunction with section 10 which we have already passed. Part IX of the Excise Tax Act which is now being repealed is the part of the Excise Tax Act which imposes taxation on the delivery of letters or post cards by post.
I wish to remind members of the committee that when the taxation in part IX of the Excise Tax Aot was placed before the house, it was clearly stated that it was a tax for war purposes only. Some hon. members whose memories go back quite a few years will recall the days when the Liberals had a good deal to say about the restoration of penny postage, "penny" of course being used in the English sense of two cents. But when the war came there was brought into being the Special War Revenue Act which later became the Excise Tax Act, and in the early years one cent was added to the postage rate which was formerly on the penny postage basis. The first tax of one cent increased the rate for letters from two cents to three cents. Then in 1943, when Mr. Ilsley brought in his budget of that year, he announced a further tax, or in other words an increase in the tax on letters. The result of the tax of 1943 was that the rate on letters became four cents, two cents of which was postage and two cents of which was tax. When questioned about this matter on April 25, 1943, the Postmaster General of that day made it clear that this was a tax for war purposes and not postage. I should like to quote a bit from page 1851 of Hansard of April 5, 1943, which reads as follows:


Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury):: This means that
the extra cent -
That is, the increase from one cent of tax to two cents of tax, making a total of four cents per letter.
-is an excise tax, not postage?


Mr. Mulock:: That is correct. The postage has
not been raised. But my colleague the Minister of Finance has required extra money for the war expenditure. It'was estimated that something upwards of $8 million could be raised by an additional one cent on letters and post cards. It was not that the Post Office Department required more money for operating. In fact our surplus as shown in the report has increased substantially in the last few years, from some $3,250 to upward of $4,500,000, with every indication that it will be still higher, although the final figures for the fiscal year are not yet in.
The point I wish to make is that when the postage on letters was boosted first from two cents to three cents, and then later to

Post Office Act
four cents it was made clear by the Postmaster General and by the minister of finance of that day that that four cents was not all postage; it was two cents postage and two cents tax for purposes of war revenue. Today, without much notice being paid to it, we have had laid before us a proposal which builds that two cents, which has been on during these years as a matter of tax, into the postage rate structure. It may be that increased costs make this change necessary. It may be that the idea of penny postage, in view of what has happened to the value of money, is gone. But I felt that before we passed this last section we should know what we are doing. We are changing the basis of our four cent postage rate from what it has been for years, two cents postage and two cents tax, to four cents postage-


Mr. Fulford:: One cent-


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Leeds is saying "one cent". No; I thought that myself this afternoon, but I went to the library and looked it up, and found that the postage rate was two cents, and that at first one cent tax was put on. I cannot tell you precisely the year, but it was probably in the early years of the war. Then in 1943 when Mr. Usley brought in his budget of that year he had this as clause 1 in his resolution regarding the Special War Revenue Act:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Special War Revenue Act and to provide:
(1) That the excise tax on each letter transmitted by post be increased from one to two cents.
It was already one cent tax and two cents postage. It became two cents tax and two cents postage. It has been that way from 1943 to the present. What we are now doing is repealing the tax but raising the postage to the figure of four cents.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On the title.
Agar Rodney Adamson: Before the title carries I want to ask the Postmaster General one question. I notice that in this bill nothing has been said about philatelists. I understand there is a special philatelic section of the post office. No mention is made of that section in this bill. Is that done purposely, or can the minister explain why? I understand that there is a special Canadian philatelic exhibition this summer which has the blessing of the department. I just want that one point cleared up.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: It could certainly be covered by section five, which reads:
Subject to this act, the Postmaster General shall administer, superintend and manage the Canada Post Office-

It could certainly come under that.


Agar Rodney Adamson: It could?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill
be read a third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Next sitting.


Alphonse Fournier: that the house go into committee of supply.
He said: The object tonight is to call some new departments. I find that I am getting short-


George Alexander Drew: If I may, just before the minister names the department, I should like to make this suggestion. I notice that in his reference to the calling of departments on Friday night the minister mentioned that nine departments were still outstanding and that he proposed to call four or five now. With the hope of avoiding any discussion on the calling of departments tonight, so that we may get ahead with fisheries, I would suggest that the minister call three tonight, and I would hope that in calling three there would be no debate at this time. This would leave an opportunity to raise any point that may have to be raised, because all the departments could not be called at one time.


Alphonse Fournier: I see no objection to calling three, but you know on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays we have to make a formal motion to go into supply. Tomorrow we intend to move to go into supply again without calling any departments. If we call five tonight we would not call any tomorrow, but we would continue with fisheries, because we could not continue with fisheries tomorrow without making a formal motion. Let us say four, because I would like to bring in public works to please the hon. member for Greenwood.


George Alexander Drew: All right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is clear then, Mr. Speaker, that whatever happens tonight it is the government's intention to move to go into supply tomorrow?


Alphonse Fournier: Yes, and to proceed with the estimates of fisheries.


George Alexander Drew: All right.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
76. Departmental administration and payments to Canadian Commercial Corporation and other corporate agencies for services provided in connection with defence purchasing and production, $5,000,000.
Item stands.

[Stage Direction]
General administration-
449. Departmental administration, $513,280.
Item stands.

[Stage Direction]
535. Departmental administration, $2,208,070.
Item stands.

[Stage Direction]
335. Departmental administration, $475,765.
Item stands.

[Stage Direction]
140. Departmental administration, $281,298.
Gordon Francis Higgins: It is rather late in the
evening to start discussion, but if there is no objection I have some comments I should like to make. I make no excuse for speaking on this subject, coming as I do from a province that produces one-third of all the fish caught in Canada. The Newfoundland catch is roughly equal to that of the maritime provinces and Quebec, and the remaining one-third is made up of British Columbia and the great lakes fisheries.
iLast year the marketed value of the dominion's fisheries, that is the entire fisheries of the dominion-I suppose I should now say of Canada-amounted to approximately $180 million. Newfoundland's share of this amount was not one-third, but one-sixth. The reason for the difference in the returns for the Newfoundland product and that of the rest of the dominion is that the other provinces catch a greater variety of fish, particularly the more highly priced varieties such as lobster, than does Newfoundland. Whilst Newfoundland caught approximately the same quantity of fish as the maritime provinces and Quebec, those provinces received twice as much in payment for their products.


An hon. Member:: Better fish.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Not a bit of it; don't let anybody tell you that. Quebec and the mari-times sell greater quantities of their fish fresh; whereas the product of Newfoundland is sold as a dry salted fish, and consequently it can be sold only in the lower priced markets.
It is true that in Newfoundland we are producing more and more fresh frozen fish; but
Supply-Fisheries
for many years, until the market has been converted, Newfoundland will have to depend, in the selling of her fish, to a very large extent on the salt fish trade. And as this fish is sold principally to the countries in the sterling group, the question of the convertibility of sterling is one of the greatest, perhaps the greatest problem, in connection with fisheries in Newfoundland.
That is a problem which, as the minister realizes, will continue for years to come. I trust that those of us from Newfoundland who sit in this and in future parliaments will not have continually to be bringing this problem of convertibility to the attention of the present minister and his successors; because it is a problem which will continue for many years to come, before the fish trade switches to fresh frozen fish. As the minister is aware, and possibly some hon. members are not, the Newfoundland salt codfish trade has continued practically without interruption for some four centuries. Before Newfoundland joined Canada, she received preferential treatment from Great Britain in this particular connection. There is no question in my mind or, I am sure, in the mind of the minister or the minds of those associated with him in the department, that there is no better service Canada could render to its newest province than to see to it that this particular currency problem is looked after regularly.
When the minister made his statement with regard to convertibility, I joined with the hon. member for Trinity-Conception in saying that I welcomed that statement, in which it was pointed out that convertibility was being arranged for this year. While the arrangement has been made only to the extent of $4 million, I feel if it comes to the point where we have to arrange for an extra $2 million, we will not be knocking at a completely closed door.
There is no doubt about the fact that unless we in Newfoundland continue to make our sales of salt codfish to Mediterranean countries, and this sterling problem is satisfactorily handled, it will be a serious matter for our province-and serious not only for Newfoundland, but also for the maritime provinces and Quebec. It means that if we are not able to sell in these age-old markets we have had, and try to sell in markets in which fish from the maritime provinces and Quebec is being sold now, it will seriously interfere with their markets for that type of fish.
It is for that reason therefore I say that the maritime and Quebec members should not feel in any way jealous of what they may consider as Dreferential treatment, in

Supply-Fisheries
so far as the arrangement for the convertibility of sterling, for Newfoundland is concerned. Because without this arrangement for convertibility, and with Newfoundland challenging the markets enjoyed by the mari-times and Quebec, it would be catastrophic for all these provinces. That is why I say there should not be any real difficulty in so far as appreciating the problem is concerned, when the members from those provinces understand that situation.
It is generally admitted that Canada is one of the great exporting countries of the world. It may be of interest to hon. members to point out that the ratio of exports of Newfoundland to its gross national production is practically three times as great as that of the dominion as a whole. Newfoundland's ratio of export trade to total national income is 67 per cent, whereas the ratio of the dominion is approximately 24 per cent. Newfoundland's ratio of imports is about 85 per cent while that of Canada as a whole is 21 per cent. The over-all picture therefore indicates clearly how our export trade works considerably to the benefit of the country as a whole. As I have pointed out, and as has been pointed out by hon. members before, the great bulk of exports from our newest province is to countries dealing in dollars. Those dollars are American dollars, and they aid materially in the economy of Canada as a whole.
But the fishing industry, in so far as salted fish is concerned, because of the particular circumstances I have pointed out, does require preferential treatment, and will continue to need it for many years to come. The chief reason is that by far the largest percentage of the working force of Newfoundland is directly engaged in fisheries, and the money goes directly back to those people.
Then, we come down to the type of fish caught. There are three types, namely Labrador, shore and bank. As the name implies, the Labrador fish are caught in Labrador waters, while the shore fish are caught along the shores of Newfoundland, and the bank fish are caught on the Grand Banks.
In view of the higher cost of living, as it has been going up in the last year, and in view of the low prices which prevailed last year for fish, it appears to me that the fishermen will have to have an increase of at least from 30 to 35 per cent in the prices of their f\ph, if they are to get through successfully at all, even with a good average voyage.
With all due respect to the minister, and the hopes he expressed in his statement on May 17, particularly his belief that the prices are going to be good this year, I doubt very 
much whether they will be as good as he thought they would be. If they are going to be good, they are certainly not going to keep up with the increased cost of living. Consequently fishermen will not be any better off.
And this gets back to the statement made by the retiring president of the fisheries council of Canada at its sixth meeting in Ottawa in March last, when he said:
The fisheries would seem to afford a great opportunity to Canadians to demonstrate the democratic way of life. Fishing is a noble, a wholesome, venturesome calling. It should bring forth the best that is in the fisherman and businessman, but I submit the industry will have failed in its destiny if the fisherman has not prospered and enjoyed a fair measure of the good things of life.
That should be the keynote of the fishing industry; it is the keynote, I am sure, of what the minister is trying to do, the keynote of what those associated with him in the department and in the fisheries council are trying to do-to give the ordinary, common fisherman a better share of the good things of life. I submit the only way the ordinary fisherman, as I know him, is going to be given a fair share of the good things of life is to have his catch sold in such a way that he will have a better return than he is getting at the present time.
This gets right back to what we have been talking about for some time. Newfoundland members have not been squawking unnecessarily; they have just been trying to make their point clear-and I believe the minister is aware of that. I believe I am justified once again in asking him that very, very serious consideration be given to setting a floor price for fish. I know the minister has given this matter consideration and I know he has had the advice of the prices support board. I know also that he is aware of a meeting that took place last week in St. John's between the fishermen and the salt codfish association. I understand that the minister stated the other day that there was not a great difference between the prices asked and what the merchants were prepared to pay. I do not know whether the minister is prepared to indicate what those prices are because if he is not I will be arguing more or less in the dark. The price that has been asked by the fishermen for the best grade fish I understand is around $12 per quintal, and I do not think that has been met. That would not appear to be an unfair price to ask. I am not saying that it is or is not, that is just what I am told.
This is not an altogether new problem. We have had price support for other commodities produced in Canada. Our friends from, the west have seen their commodities subsidized extensively and I

believe there is still a hot argument as to whether proper payment has been made for wheat. We have had subsidies on potatoes and cheese and I see no reason why the same principle should not be applied to fish. In the brief submitted in 1944 by the United Maritime Fisheries, as a result of which the Fisheries Prices Support Act was passed, the following statement appears:
It is the view of our members that, if the fishery is to be reconstructed upon a basis that will provide freedom from want for the fishermen, some means must be devised to maintain fish prices on a parity with other commodities. If the price structure in other branches of food production is to be supported by a floor, it is equally necessary to make a similar provision for the fishery. It is well known that in the past the discrepancy between the prices received by the primary producer and the general commodity levels has been greater in the fishery than in any other branch of production.
The concluding paragraph of that brief reads:
We urge, therefore, that in order to ensure our fishermen a reasonable measure of security, a floor be established under fish prices on a basis which will put them on an equal footing with other producers.
I understand that Norway and Iceland, both of which are competitors of Canada in the sale of salt fish, have established floor prices.	I believe that this information,
which I obtained from a departmental publication, is correct.
I am not too well prepared tonight at this late hour and for a moment I shall leave fish and deal with another part of the fisheries that comes under the minister, our seal fisheries. As the minister is aware, there was considerable competition in sealing this year from the Norwegians and other nationalities. The killing date of March 13 was established many years ago by Newfoundland, which date gave the seals time to deliver their young. This year the Norwegian sealers came in without waiting for that date and the seals were killed before they had a chance to deliver their young. This was very cruel killing and it has been commented upon strongly by the Newfoundland press. In the Daily News of April 2 Captain Sidney Hill of the Arctic Sealer commented on this fact as follows:
A crime was committed, one for which there should be no excuse. I saw the crews of the ships sculping the whitecoats within a few hours after they were born. Many of these seals were not more than twelve pounds in weight. The Norwegian and other ships were taking seals ar.11 this forced all ships to do the same. There should be some international agreement made to prohibit the taking of young harps before the old Newfoundland killing
Supply-Fisheries
date, March 13. It is a murder to take the seals so early and I cannot condemn the practice too strongly.
In the Evening Telegram of April 19 appeared a strong editorial headed, "The .sealing industry imperilled." I shall not read it all, but there is one paragraph dealing with this type of slaughter which reads:
That is a matter of importance. The other damning aspect of this early killing is that the slaughter is perpetrated so soon after, or even before, propagation occurs, to the complete disregard of all the laws of conservation. It is asking men to engage in a barbarous slaughter. It is also asking them to disregard laws which have been made to ensure that species, no matter what kind, will not become extinct. Under such unregulated conditions it is futile to expect that the seals can long survive.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



RAILWAYS, CANALS AND TELEGRAPH LINES PRESENTATION OF SIXTH REPORT AND CONCURRENCE IN RECOMMENDATION

Mr. F. P. Whitman (Notre Dame de Grace):: By leave of the house, I should like to revert to routine proceedings in order to present the sixth report of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. By leave of the house, I should like to revert to motions and move:
That the recommendation contained in the sixth report of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines presented this day in respect to the capital stock of Bill No. 321 be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we will give third reading to Bill No. 322, respecting the Canada post office. Then we will move to go into supply and call one department, after which we will continue with the fisheries estimates. I believe we will have time to take up some small bills and resolutions. There is a resolution concerning an amendment to the P.F.R.A., and that will be first; then Bill No. 357 to amend the Criminal Code (race meetings) and Bill No. 338, to amend the Quebec Savings Banks Act. After that we always have the Income Tax Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Those bills and resolutions will be dealt with, if at all, after we have been in supply on fisheries?


Alphonse Fournier: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]

Tuesday, June 12, 1951